Slashdot Mirror


MPAA Targets TV Download Sites

KenDaMan writes "ZDNet.com is reporting that the MPAA is targeting websites that serve as traffic directors for BitTorrent swaps. From the article: 'Continuing its war on Internet file-swapping sites, the Motion Picture Association of America said Thursday that it has filed lawsuits against a half-dozen hubs for TV show trading.' Apparently it is OK to record TV as long as your aren't sharing it."

810 comments

  1. Hello, Friends by the_mad_poster · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Apparently it is OK to record TV as long as your aren't sharing it.

    No shit, fucknuts. Distribution of copyrighted material is illegal, not owning it. Did you run home from kindygardin just to post this stupid shit to slashdot?

    Oh shit. I forgot. I'm on slashdot where people form dumbass opinions on things like this all the time even though they clearly know nothing about the topic of discussion.

    And, of course, the editors put this stupid shit up on the front page so you fat, floppy, friendless fucks can sit around screaming and flailing over some perceived injustice (oh noes! They don't want me to steal their hard work!) until you have a thin film of dorito-colored spit coating your screen and a lapful of slurpee.

    You're all dumbasses.

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    1. Re:Hello, Friends by pomo+monster · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Parent makes a good point; it's too bad the mods didn't want to hear it.

    2. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm an American citizen and what you say is true. Our founding fathers like John Wayne and Gary Cooper who tought civilization to the savage red indians and who made this country great would turn in their graves if they knew people were sharing TV content.

    3. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The poster gave up his opportunity to receive positive moderation when he descended into juvenile insult. If you genuinely believe that he had a point, then restate it in a nonabrasive manner and see if the mods "want to hear it"

    4. Re:Hello, Friends by stor · · Score: 0

      NO, YOU ARE!!!!

      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    5. Re:Hello, Friends by pomo+monster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I thought "you're all dumbasses" was the most insightful bit.

    6. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      If Slashdot is full of dumbasses, then what the fuck are you doing here reading it, dumbass?

    7. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently it is OK to record TV as long as your aren't sharing it.

      No shit, fucknuts.


      Pray tell, what is the difference between (digitally) recording a show yourself, or DLing the same exact show from someone else? Either way, you end up with the same recording.

    8. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      LOL, drop the dumbasses part and you're exactly right. I mean WTF????

      If Disney up for it and wanted to try something new. Slap together some old but interesting IP, flash 10 second ad of a new burger (or in how to ask for a particular burger a certain way to save 50 cents), for say Burger King and see what happens.

      Release it on one of these sites and swear up and down not to prosecute anyone so long as the ad stays intact. The trickle effect should be noticeable for weeks...Conditions include for distribution and private viewing only, not for public display (perhaps roll that across the screen every 10 minutes)

      Break up that conditioning set by commercials every 12 minutes. Producers get the audience they're aiming at (instead of the welfare system today). There's room for more advertising in less intrusive methods, but the audience needs to be acclimatized to it (though there will have to be a cut off point between quality and spam).

    9. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I thought "you're all dumbasses" was the most insightful bit.

      It's actually the most informative

    10. Re:Hello, Friends by orionware · · Score: 1

      This is one of the funniest posts I've seen here in months.. MOD this up!

      --


      Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
    11. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who rubbed sand in your pussy?

    12. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because when you're recording it with your TV, it's still being "watched" and the ratings are "higher". If you download it, you aren't even watching your TV.

    13. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The colorful language drowns out the insightful point.

    14. Re:Hello, Friends by xQx · · Score: 1

      Here's some flamebait...

      I hear what you're saying -- in fact, I can't really argue against it.

      However, I really don't care.

      I'm a thief, and I'm cool with that. I'm stealing 10c from the actors, writers and directors, and about $20 from the Advertising / Marketing / Legal firms that spew forth shit like Big Brother and Jerry Springer into our lounge rooms every day. -- And I'm cool with that.

      Newsflash: People Lie, Cheat, Steal and do any mannor of other things that in a perfect world they wouldn't do. I'm no exception, and may the person without sin throw the first stone.

    15. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it was such a stupid thing to say. A lot of people think the "Dumbasses" bit was probably the most insightful part of the comment.

      The rest of it is stating the obvious. That should be a pointless excercise, but it seems some people need the obvious pointed out to them.

    16. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your TV knows that how, exactly? Do you have any idea how ratings are calculated?

    17. Re:Hello, Friends by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Actually, unless you are a Nielsen family. You aren't watching it anyway.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    18. Re:Hello, Friends by DJCacophony · · Score: 1

      Only if you favor presentation over content.

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    19. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to se a beowulf cluster of these "dumb asses", of which you speak.

    20. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presentation affects content.

      You don't eat a 5 star, $200 dinner on a slab of concrete in a sewer.

    21. Re:Hello, Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The five star dining room experience is the content. You wouldn't pay $200 to eat the same food at home.

    22. Re:Hello, Friends by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 1
      Slap together some old but interesting IP, flash 10 second ad of a new burger (or in how to ask for a particular burger a certain way to save 50 cents), for say Burger King and see what happens.

      Release it on one of these sites and swear up and down not to prosecute anyone so long as the ad stays intact. The trickle effect should be noticeable for weeks...Conditions include for distribution and private viewing only, not for public display (perhaps roll that across the screen every 10 minutes)
      Actually, the Fox show Arrested Development had a very similar idea used for humorous ends. On the show, the character Tobias is an actor. He took some acting lessons from Carl Weathers, who played Apollo in the first few Rocky movies.
      Here's the relevant dialogue:
      Narrator: And Tobias met with Carl Weathers at Burger King.

      Carl Weathers: Thanks for meeting me down here at Burger King. I'm trying to get them to underwrite a new TV project I'm working on. Get some money in exchange for setting a scene here at Burger King.

      Tobias: Well, as long as you don't draw attention to it.
      The two talk a bit about Carl's project. The scene ends as follows:
      Carl Weathers: I'm gonna go get a new soda. Hey, you know that you can get a refill on any drink you want here, and it's free? (Laughs)

      Tobias: (Laughs) It's a wonderful restaurant. Mmm!

      Narrator: It sure is.
      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
  2. "Apparently it is OK to record TV..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, yeah, that's what the law says. Whether that's right or not is a different matter.

    1. Re:"Apparently it is OK to record TV..." by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sharing TV shows, I'm operating a component of a distributed video recording device, which happens to use other peoples hard drives for storage space, and mine for cache.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. That should be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That should be "You're aren't sharing it."

    1. Re:That should be... by peculiarmethod · · Score: 1

      I never know anymore if someone is kidding or not these days. Maybe that is what I was seeing when as a kid things were so obvious to me, and the adults seemed oblivious. The 'r' in 'your' needs to be removed, but after that last dupe inside a dupe, I think all the true pendants have gone into a coma for the day.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    2. Re:That should be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Maybe it should be "you'ren't"?

    3. Re:That should be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Pendants' is a joke, right? ;)

  4. what? by austad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought the MPAA only dealt with movies? Are they just going after TV sharers for the hell of it?

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
    1. Re:what? by chrispyman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite. Their member companies produce most of the TV shows as well.

    2. Re:what? by Demoknight · · Score: 5, Funny

      Next thing we'll hear the MPAA going after porn torrents... I mean assuming they're out there.

    3. Re:what? by Karzz1 · · Score: 1

      It's what they do. It's all they do.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    4. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Porn is making its way into the mainstream by allowing itself to be so available. Yeah, they may make a fuss about copyright on occasion to keep up appearances, but overall, they'd rather grow their market so that they can cash in down the line. Today's 16 year olds downloading porn are future adults buying porn.

    5. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yesterday's 16 year old downloading free porn is today's 26 year old downloading free porn.

      It's only a matter of time before the big budget porn DVD companies start suing people too, mark this AC's words.

    6. Re:what? by Luigi30 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course, but only after downloading it and analyzing it frame-by-frame to see if it truely is copyrighted material.

      --
      503 Sig Unavailable

      The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    7. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was 16 I bought porn. I'm 45 and now I download it.

    8. Re:what? by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think you miss the point when it comes to porn. The porn industry has profit margins that exceed all other forms of entertainment.

      Think about it. You pay a guy and a girl $500 for a 18 minute video, which may take all of 2 hours to shoot and an evening to mix/produce, then you have a lot of revenue for a long time if marketed correctly.

      If these margins weren't so wide and the people doing the shooting weren't privately funded ventures, you would see a major difference. To simplify this: There aren't thousands of screaming shareholders, nor are there hundreds of lobbyists working on making ends meet for these businesses. MPAA associated businesses are different.

      All these things are covered in high school economics class, it's strange to see people think some industries are cooler for the sake of humanity and completely missing the reason why every single business on earth exists: to generate revenue.

    9. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, 16 one day and 26 the next? Torrents act as time-travelling devices too?

    10. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the MPAA only dealt with movies? Are they just going after TV sharers for the hell of it?

      They wanted to go after widows and orphans, but bittorrent files don't provide that information.

    11. Re:what? by DustMagnet · · Score: 4, Funny

      They covered the porn industry in your high school economics class?
      Wow.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    12. Re:what? by ThisIsFred · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, you need any help, just let me know.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    13. Re:what? by Saeger · · Score: 3, Informative
      Next thing we'll hear the MPAA going after porn torrents... I mean assuming they're out there.

      That they are. The "suprnova" of the porn torrent sites is Empornium. Pro: leeching is limited by ratio and you cant just create new leech accounts, so the download rates usually saturate your connection. Con: the admins are arrogant assholes.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    14. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A classic "circle-jerk" is suggested on /. and interestingly, not by ACs. Well, knock me over with a feather!

    15. Re:what? by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

      Today's 16 year olds downloading porn are future adults buying porn.

      Indeed, but not all. I've seen a number of my movies being shared on torrent sites (with nearly thousands of seeders,) although not a whole lot lately (my favourites were forced down in the last great purge.) Am I broke because of this ? Nope. These people are only sharing yesterdays content, tomorrow is another day and there's plenty of young actresses desperate to make it big in Hollywood.

    16. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didnt cover it in your economics class? We spent a whole week on it. Watched some PrimeTime Special on the Porn industry. Did you know that the Porn industry has its own lobbyist? I didnt!

      It was a riveting class! When we finished the unit, the only people who would leave their seats were the girls, everyone else stayed put with their books in their laps. It was THAT RIVETING.

    17. Re:what? by strider44 · · Score: 3, Funny

      well shit I was wondering why so many people chose economics! I should have checked up on it a bit more.

    18. Re:what? by zakezuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Think about it. You pay a guy and a girl $500 for a 18 minute video, which may take all of 2 hours to shoot and an evening to mix/produce, then you have a lot of revenue for a long time if marketed correctly.

      Not all porn is simple guy girl getting it on with a cum shot at the end. You have things like Caligula by Penthouse films starring Malcolm McDowell, Peter O'Toole, and Helen Mirren. Even Debbie Does Dallas from my understanding had a high production value though i've not seen it. Playboy has it's own channel for pete's sake.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    19. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What titles have you worked on?

      Oh, nevermind, you're using I2P mail. Does that mean you're a paranoid?

      Just curious.

    20. Re:what? by rebug · · Score: 1

      You can't stop them. They'll wade through your rights, reach down your throat, and pull your fucking heart out.

      --

      there's more than one way to do me.
    21. Re:what? by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      My eyes are getting teary.
      I think I speak for all of us:
      Thank you!

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    22. Re:what? by AvantLegion · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why didn't I think of that?

      Instead of spending $500 on hookers, I can set up some cameras and pay a porn star $500 and cast myself as the leading man! Then I even have it on VIDEO afterwards!

      Porn profit margins, you ain't kidding. You've solved the puzzle:
      1) (some crap)
      2) ??? // insert porn here!
      3) profit!

      Never thought I'd actually find genius on Slashdot...

    23. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, female porn stars are paid an average of $2000 per scene and males an average of $800 per scene.

    24. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's right though. It's a very relevant point. Just as important, however, is the competitiveness of the market. It takes a lot of money to start a major studio but it only takes a couple of poor actors/actresses and a digital camera and you're in the game - this leads to a very competitive and cutthroat industry where distribution and publicity are as important as "legitimate" distribution.

      It may seem in conflict with high margins, but I think that it's a sage point.

      but what do I know... I only watch it

    25. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, they didn't focus on the whole porn industry, only Goatse and Tube Girl.

    26. Re:what? by mp3phish · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All these things are covered in high school economics class, it's strange to see people think some industries are cooler for the sake of humanity and completely missing the reason why every single business on earth exists: to generate revenue.

      It is too bad that this attitude is all too common with recently college educated people.

      You think that you are leaving high school economics behind with that statement? Or are you trying to say that you learned this in HS economics? The problem with your post is that it is 100% completely and utterly WRONG.

      Businesses exist for several reasons. Most of the time it is to fill a gap in the market place. They exist to create jobs. They exist to provide a service that people need or want. They exist to provide a product which people need or want. They exist to further the social institution we as humans are always trying to improve on. They exist for several hundred reasons, and only one of them is to generate revenue. The revenue generation isn't that important if you take a step back and look at the big picture. This isn't about economics. It is about humanity. And even if it were you would still be wrong.

      It must be a scary place looking through your economic worldview. No wonder you make such silly statements; you don't know any better.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    27. Re:what? by Abalamahalamatandra · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hey, it works for Ed Powers!

      I think that was probably his exact thought process - "I have to pay for it, so why not tape it and recoup my costs?"

    28. Re:what? by NutWrench · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's PORN on the INTERNET?

    29. Re:what? by GutBomb · · Score: 1

      dude you're completely wrong. girls get between $500-1500, and men get between $100-200 tops.

      Sure the top stars get a lot more, buy the top stars make up for 1% of porn actors.

      I used to work at a porn talent agency. the only guys that get paid anything close to $800 are the straight guys that do gay porn.

    30. Re:what? by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1


      It must be a scary place looking through your economic worldview. No wonder you make such silly statements; you don't know any better.


      I'm almost forty, school was a long time ago.

      So, before I bite on your troll-bait, please show me examples of companies who have been publically traded for 10+ years and exist only to fill gaps with no revenue goals. Good luck.

    31. Re:what? by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      I dont hold any particular opinions regarding the merits of any lifestyle. But get it right. If they are doing gay porn, they are gay.

    32. Re:what? by tfoss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't understand why prostitution is illegal, Selling is legal, f***ing is legal. So why isn't selling f***ing legal? Why should it be illegal to sell something that's legal to give away?
      - George Carlin

      And it becomes legal again if you just film it. Something's seriously f'ed up right there.

      -Ted

      --
      -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
    33. Re:what? by jrockway · · Score: 1

      What's funny is that filming yourself paying $500 for sex is legal, but not filming it is a crime. What a strange country we live in...

      --
      My other car is first.
    34. Re:what? by Cramer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Two corrections... 1) you certainly can "just create new leech accounts"... as long as the site is below the 200k user limit. (you might have to get a little inventive to get around being banned, etc.) 2) the admins are not "arrogant assholes". This is typically the stance taken by those who have been banned for any number of (justified) reasons. (posting under-age or otherwise prohibited content, being a leech (i.e. refusing to seed/upload), breaking the rules you said you'd read, etc.)

      That said, there are numerous pr0n torrent sites.

    35. Re:what? by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      Most countries prostitution is legal, it's just that solicitation is the crime.

      aka you can sell it, but you can't advertise it

    36. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it actually work that way? I always assumed porn is legal because the people who are paying (the producers) are not the people who are fucking.

    37. Re:what? by xtracto · · Score: 1

      are there?? can you point me 2 or 3 that DO NOT require to sign/log in??

      i NEED p0rn.
      please?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    38. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I can't believe you would censor George Carlin.. that's just... wow. Do you even LISTEN to what he speaks about?

    39. Re:what? by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
      Even Debbie Does Dallas from my understanding had a high production value though i've not seen it.

      I've seen Debbie Does Dallas. It has all the high production value of an SCTV skit. Unlike toady's 'gonzo' pr0n, it does have a plot and an actual attempt at acting, but it's closer to a film school project than to a big budget production like Caligula.

      If you're interested in DDD and have the appropriate moral/ethical temperment, there's a torrent floating around. It's about 850 MB mpg. If buying stuff is your bag, clicky clicky.

      Another fun pr0n industry nugget, #1 company in dirty movies? Marriott. All that in-room PPV adds up.

    40. Re:what? by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      I mean assuming they're out there.

      You mean like these torrents?

    41. Re:what? by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
      If they are doing gay porn, they are gay.

      It's called acting!

    42. Re:what? by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 4, Informative

      Con: the admins are arrogant assholes.

      Reason: because they have to deal with the worst of the worst kinds of adolescent assholery. They're strict with their rules, and there are generally no second chances. If you want your porn for free, you follow the rules; the fact that the site is so popular is a testament to how many people agree with the mods' enforcement policies.

      Or, so I've heard.

    43. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ya know those internet porn torrents are what keeps most U.S. senators up at night!

    44. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmm... I though the prOn industry was all about making ends meet...

    45. Re:what? by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      Yes. If I pretend to stick a knife into you then I am acting the part of a murderer. If I actually stick the knife into you then I am no longer acting. Use your imagination to finish this analogy.

    46. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I am acting in a fast food commercial where I act hungry and eat a burger, I am not neccessarily actually hungry; I eat the burger because the company is paying me.

    47. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the TV/Movie Industrie, the Porn companies are already selling ther stuff on the Internet.
      (in big quantities, not some old Movie that no one wants to see/never heard off)

      And they are probaly the first ones to make big profit with HD/Blu-ray DVDs/Movies ;)

    48. Re:what? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      I've seen Debbie Does Dallas. It has all the high production value of an SCTV skit. Unlike toady's 'gonzo' pr0n, it does have a plot and an actual attempt at acting, but it's closer to a film school project than to a big budget production like Caligula.

      Thanks for the info... I'm not seen it personaly only bits and pieces of the spinoffs that to me seem pretty well done... well hollywood b grade movie level. I would have thought with all the hype it had a high production value.

      If you're interested in DDD and have the appropriate moral/ethical temperment, there's a torrent floating around

      Thank you... I think i'll pass on either. I would be nice to be able to say i've seen it, but it takes too much bother and effort to sort past all those gential close ups and establish what the plot is.

      Another fun pr0n industry nugget, #1 company in dirty movies? Marriott. All that in-room PPV adds up.

      I don't know if it was a Marriott, Best Western, or a Hilton at the time... but near as I could tell the hotel offered soft porn. I believe most cable networks offer playboy on a PPV basis or as a subscription, as well as Spice and a number of PPV porn channels. The little i've seen from playboy leads me to believe they actually employ decent cinematographers and take care in post production.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    49. Re:what? by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure if you took all the porn off the internet there would only be one website left, and it would be called "Bring back the porn !".

    50. Re:what? by fritz1968 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can set up some cameras and pay a porn star $500 and cast myself as the leading man!


      Yea... but who would spend money for a 30 second movie?

      --
      It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
    51. Re:what? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      In the UK, prostitution is legal, however running a brothel and soliciting are both illegal. Basically, as long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses, it's fine.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    52. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they are only pretending to have ass sex! I knew it! There goes my night :-(

    53. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it should be in the next episode of fear factor.

      This man's job is to suck dick. He hates it, but we pay him 800.00.

      If you want to move on to the next round, you have to suck this guys dick (and eat a dead donkey's balls).

      I wouldn't suck dick for a million dallors.

    54. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A general torrent site which also includes porn can be found here.

    55. Re:what? by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      Playboy has it's own channel for pete's sake.

      And let me tell you, Pete is one happy guy.

    56. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh huh, you said "insert", and then you said "porn" huh huh huh.

    57. Re:what? by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Yea... but who would spend money for a 30 second movie?

      No no no. You miss the point. You also need to do what the other porn makers do, and with creative editing, looping, and a couple of montage shots, you should be able to turn that 30 seconds of footage into hours of infinitely diverse and fascinating porn.

      I mean, come on, we've *all* seen the same few seconds get spliced back into the film over and over and over now haven't we?
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    58. Re:what? by Thundertje · · Score: 1

      Here in The Netherlands prostitiuton is legal. They're legitimate businesses that pay taxes. Have government guidelines and everything.

    59. Re:what? by itchy92 · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm inclined to agree with the OP, though I think he may have phrased it unclearly. My interpretation of what he said is:

      (virtually) every single business on earth exists to generate money as their primary goal.

      Of course, all the reasons you state are integral factors in the continued existence of any company, but even the mom-and-pop stores (as cited in child posts) intend to make at least enough money to continue operating. So while not every business is interested in maximizing revenue, they certainly do not want to operate at a loss, no matter how altruistic their other motivations.

      --
      Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
    60. Re:what? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      You are still consuming fast food or having gay sex.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    61. Re:what? by CerebusUS · · Score: 1

      Caligula wasn't shot as a porn movie, originally. It was supposed to be a Fellini-esque (meaning raunchy and disturbing) look at the Roman Empire made by a big-budget studio. The studio went bankrupt and the production company fell apart and liquidated its assets. Bob Guccione bought the rights to the film and recut it with a bunch of Penthouse models and turned it into the highest budget porn movie ever made. But it wasn't originally intended to be that.

      The highest budget porn movie ever made to be an actual porn is (or was, assuming Wicked hasn't started making $250k films) Zazel, which also features a number of Penthouse models.

      But honestly, most porn is very standard, very rote, very much "simple guy girl getting in on with a cum shot at the end"

      Or girls getting paid to act like lesbians, that's popular too.

    62. Re:what? by sandman935 · · Score: 1

      WRT to Marriott's place in the pr0n industry, I think you're confusing them with the company that provides the service to them.

      It's been a couple of years since I stayed at one, but IIRC LodgeNet provides their video services. It's an interesting deal. Lodgenet installs and owns all the equipment while the hotel gets a small percentage of the take. I'd have to do some digging, but at one time LodgeNet (or possibly one of their competitors) was the largest seller of pornography in the country.

      --

      Defecation occurs.
    63. Re:what? by doyle.jack · · Score: 1

      I must have missed school that day. Damn shame. I probably would have made sure to have been there had I known they were going to be discussing the porn industry.

    64. Re:what? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      It must be a scary place looking through your economic worldview. No wonder you make such silly statements; you don't know any better.

      This coming from someone who's grasp on basic economics is so poor he manages to embarrass himself in public without even realizing it.

      Business is not, has never been, and will never be about "humanity", whatever the hell that means. It's about the bottom line, and for that you should be thankful. Without that motivational drive the human race would still be living in tribal groups digging roots out of the dirt with sticks.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    65. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are both missing the point. ;) Forget that noone else would buy it. The porn stars generally look a lot better than the hookers I've seen. *AND* you get the video. ;)

    66. Re:what? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      " Yesterday's 16 year old downloading free porn is today's 26 year old downloading free porn."

      Proof, kids, that using porn really ages you.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    67. Re:what? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are still consuming fast food or having gay sex.

      So you agree that "being hungry" and "eating food" are two distinct things. They are usually related, so confusing them would be easy, but they can be independent. So it would seem with "being gay" and "having gay sex."

    68. Re:what? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      NO the correlation is "having a full stomach" and "having eating food" and "being gay" and "having gay sex"

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    69. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were true, a teenage virgin would be neither straight, bi, nor gay, yet in real life pretty much all of them already know who they lust after.

    70. Re:what? by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      afraid you might like it? Homosexuality only exists in western civ. Why in fact, it's the whole basis of the united states. You're either with us or against us.

      Childish thinking, i know, hopefully one day people will grow up.

    71. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where were you educated? Texas?

    72. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very funny... Wish I could mod you up!

    73. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well, I wouldn't suck twat for a million dollars either. Gross!

    74. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get real. Homosexuality exists everywhere, and probably has since before our species arose.

    75. Re:what? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't understand. Are you saying that someone that lusts after members of their own sex, buys gay porn to masturbate with, refuses sex with women (as he isn't attracted to any women), and engages in erotic talk with other men is heterosexual up until the point that he performs an actual sex act with another man?

    76. Re:what? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      The person you are describing is ultimately a-sexual in the discussion at hand... the gay/straight discussion at hand is.. can someone who regularly has gay sex claim to be straight... and the obvious simple answer is NO!

      Like the show or not Law and Order SVU actually did a show about that very subject.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    77. Re:what? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "I mean, come on, we've *all* seen the same few seconds get spliced back into the film over and over and over now haven't we?"

      Or you could do what the big budget Hollywood movies do, film the same action from different cameras at the same time, then splice the action together to make it seem linear.

      There i just made your 30 seconds into 90!!

    78. Re:what? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "So, before I bite on your troll-bait, please show me examples of companies who have been publically traded for 10+ years and exist only to fill gaps with no revenue goals. Good luck."

      How about the airlines that have been operating in bankruptcy for many years now and are subsidized often by the government because they are "essential"? (the recent United Airlines news stories come to mind)

    79. Re:what? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Like the show or not Law and Order SVU actually did a show about that very subject.

      Are you serious? You are basing your argument on a piece of fiction?

      The person you are describing is ultimately a-sexual in the discussion at hand...

      No, he is homosexual. Are you attracted to guys or girls? Could you choose to be attracted to the opposite? It is the attraction that which defines sexuality.

    80. Re:what? by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      Sex with the same gender has existed probably forever. Homosexuality only lives in western civ. No other civilization thinks that you are strictly one or the other.

      That's because western civ has borderline personality disorder, with the states topping the charts :) Everything has to be opposite and mutually exclusive for them.

    81. Re:what? by frankenbox · · Score: 1

      Yeah, um I can picture Ron Jeremy doing a public service notice...

    82. Re:what? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      NO behaviour defines sexuality... Having Sex with MEN makes you GAY. Accept it.

      You aren't straight no matter how much you claim otherwise if you habitually customarily have sex with men.

      AND yes... when applicable I will use a fictional example when appropriate... In the show there was a group of men who got together to have homosexual sex, but they went home and had "relationships" with women and claimed that somehow made them straight... IT DOESN'T.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    83. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The men in the show were bi, and would have been even if they didn't actually manage to get together. I sincerely hope you don't try to sell your "desire is irrelevant" theory to anyone who's been raped (in prison, for instance).

    84. Re:what? by LinuxLuver · · Score: 2, Informative

      Prostitution is legal in Australia and New Zealand.

      The world didn't end. In fact, in New Zealand, the 'sex workers' now have legal rights with respect to their employers (brothel owners) and can take such matters to the Employment Court like any other contractor or employee. The downside for them, I guess, is that now they have to pay income tax.

      Legalising prostitution recognised what was going on all day every day anyway....and gave the people at the centre of the industry legal rights they had never had before. Win / win for all concerned. Including the clients, from what I hear.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    85. Re:what? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      NO behaviour defines sexuality...

      So, a man raped my another man is now and will forever be gay. I disagree with your definition of sexuality. I looked it up in a number of dictionaries. They didn't define it in terms of who you had sex with, but they did have definitions of who you desire. They are separate ideas. If you disagree, I would like to see a dictionary definition that agrees with you and not me.

    86. Re:what? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Ok.. we aren't talking about rape, we're talking about a repeated consensual act..

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    87. Re:what? by vmfedor · · Score: 1
      So... You start a used car business tommorow. You're in it "better humanity?" I doubt humanity is in the minds of many business owners, and I'm not saying that in a bad way. You start a business because you want to make money, you run a business to make more money. Nobody would invest in something that can generate profit and not want to generate profit.

      You say your parent has a scary economic viewpoint... I'd say you have a very naive one.

      --

      I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.

    88. Re:what? by vmfedor · · Score: 1

      The people working for United Airlines aren't working for free, I can guarantee you.

      --

      I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.

    89. Re:what? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Ok.. we aren't talking about rape, we're talking about a repeated consensual act..

      We are talking about the definition of homosexual. You claim it is based solely on acts. I posted a counterpoint. Are you up to speed now?

    90. Re:what? by Pete · · Score: 1

      He sure is.

  5. Re:btefnet by jlev · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA has a list.

    "The six sites sued Thursday include ShunTV, Zonatracker, Btefnet, Scifi-Classics, CDDVDHeaven and Bragginrights."

  6. Yeah, that's kinda the point by smileyy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apparently it is OK to record TV as long as your aren't sharing it. Think you could loosen your grip on the obvious just a little? It's starting to turn a little blue in the face...

    --
    pooptruck
    1. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite part of that sentence was "your aren't"... it just proves that my English isn't that bad after all.

    2. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by zapp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Explain to me the problem with allowing other people to distribute your program for you? if you ask me, torrenting shows should be encouraged.

      What should be illegal is removing the commercials, then they need to find a way to track the # of people that download a show (ie: if THEY hosted the torrent).

      The internet is clearly a viable way of distributing media to the masses. if they welcomed it and embraced it, they would see a lot more happy viewers, and a lot more money.

      But I guess that interferes with all those contracts giving certain networks exclusive rights to broadcasting, doesn't it?

      --
      no comment
    3. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean we get to go after President Bush's wife? See - she has a DVD with the full first season of Desperate Housewives back home at the White House. It is a show she has never watched. Why does this matter? The first season DVD is not set for release until next Fall. Doh!

    4. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by 4b696e67 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The tv/movie industry is facing the same problem that the music industry has faced/is facing. They see that thier stranglehold on distribution is in trouble. If it got to the point where people could download any syndicated show from the people who make it for a small fee, then companies like Time/Warner/AOL/etc. couldn't sell their air time for profit. Companies that base their business on being middle men are never going to be for a way to do business without them.

    5. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Informative
      Often they don't 'remove' the commercials.

      TV shows sent to affilites in the US are still broadcast in the clear for the most part, because many can't decode encrypted ones.

      Which means if you have a 'big' (whatever the technical term is) sat dish, you can watch TV shows without ads, in advance, and record them digitally.

      It's actually rather obvious which is which. If it has anything besides the network logo, or non-perfect commercial editing, it's from a broadcast. If not, it's probably from satellite and never had commercials to start with.

      Oddly enough, thanks to conservative Christians, it's now perfectly legal to sell devices that 'edit' TV shows and movies.

      This was designed to allow a DVD player that skips (or possibly just blanks) 'offensive' scenes. I'm sure the law attempts to actually limit it to 'offensive content' instead of ads. But the post office has a law saying you can stop offensive mail to you, and the courts said, point-blank, that the post office is allowed no judgement in that...if you say the Radio Shack catalog is offensive, or third class mail, or green envelopes, they legally have to stop it.

      So, legally, it's probably okay, now, to sell a device that talks to a bunch of other devices and lets you vote on where ads are, and skips them if enough people agree.

      And what I think the FCC should step in and say is: You get these frequencies for free, and in return you had to provide useful content on them. Well, we're changing the rules. Not only do you have to provide useful content on them, you are required by law to provide in last 48 hours you broadcast for download on the internet, in 30 minute sections, so this useful content can be seen if people miss it.

      It can be DRMd and expire at 48 hours, and you can even disallow fast forwarding. Although, of course, the availiblity and format of your net content might be discussed next license renewal. If it doesn't work under Linux, the FCC is going to be waving some letters at you.

      And unlike other things the FCC likes to screw around with these days, it probably actually has the authority to do something like that, just like it can mandate a TV station keep a record of complaints and announce call letters on the air.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    6. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Companies that base their business on being middle men are never going to be for a way to do business without them.

      I had to read that twice to make sense of it, but he's right.

    7. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      It's their copyrighted material... whether they do the best they can to make money from it, or shove it up their ass is their business. You can't infringe on their copyright and then justify it on grounds that that's what they ought to be doing.

      Recording for your personal use is fair use. Distributing that recording over the internet is not.

    8. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by SageLikeFool · · Score: 1

      I'd say the biggest problem they have with it is the fact that THERE ARE NO COMMERCIALS in downloaded TV shows. They are taken out to save space on the download and save time viewing. That kind of screws with the making money through advertising scheme...

    9. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      technicaly donwloaders are making use of their fair right. They could record the show themselves and be happy. But why record if someone as already donne the job?

    10. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      Which is why the uploaders are the ones that get sued. Of course with Bittorrent everyone is an uploader

    11. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies like cabel and dish are robbing everyone blind already. Charge advertisers for air time, and you to watch the advertisments...

      What they should do is realize there will be someone "ripping them off" and deal with it in new (or rather old) ways... product placement, commercials built into the show (like WB and the Verison guy), scroll ads at the bottom like "News" companies (Fox, MSNBC, Clinton News Network, et al.)

      My question is, why doesn't AOL/TimeWarner do the smart thing (for once) and allow shows to be downloaded, from them, with commercials in. It'd make the file size larger, so downloading them would take longer, so lusers people would switch from their dial-up (AOL) to their broadband service (RoadRunner) and pay more money. Besides that, they'll still want to see stuff on their big screen tvs, so they won't drop their cable subscriptions.

    12. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      Why? I pay $100/month for cable TV. If I miss a show that won't be re-run for God knows how long, why shouldn't I be able to download it? As far as I'm concerned, I've already paid my dues to these blood-suckers.

    13. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Cramer · · Score: 1

      And just how would they collect money for the ads in torrents? Those that created the content have no way of knowing how many people downloaded a copy of their broadcast, and thus have no way to appropriately charge the advertisers.

      (The actual economics are a little complicated. I'm not gonna go into it.)

    14. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, just like I'm allowed to walk in to the movie theater at any time because I bought a ticket but didn't show up to watch the movie. Oh wait... I'm not. If you didn't watch it when it ran on TV, its your own damn fault. Buy a VCR, rent it from a video store, get on-demand TV.

      I'm not shedding any tears for the MPAA, but stop making ridiculous excuses to justify your infringement. If you think $100/month is too much, don't pay for it. Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to get cable TV.

      The MPAA is well within its rights to sue people that distribute unauthorized copies of their content. It's when they try and do things like get P2P outlawed that they cross the line. That's not happening in this case though.

    15. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is it so hard to see how many people downloaded a torrent of a show? its usually posted right on most tracker sites.

    16. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Ulven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bad analogy. You bought a ticket to a specific film at a specific time. If you subscribe to cable, it's like buying a season ticket to the cinema, and in that case, of course you could walk in at any time.

    17. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Cramer · · Score: 1

      why is it so hard to see how many people downloaded a torrent of a show? its usually posted right on most tracker sites

      a) because the numbers are not 100% accurate
      b) because there's insufficient demographic information in that one number
      c) without demographic data, who should be paid and who should be paying it? (national ads vs. local ads where it was aired vs. local ads where it was downloaded, etc.)

    18. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      THERE ARE NO COMMERCIALS in downloaded TV shows.

      And if I was forced to download stuff with ads, you just KNOW that I'd spin on all the way through the break. So they needn't bother.

    19. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by LordSnooty · · Score: 3, Funny

      get on-demand TV.

      Durrrr! That's what I've been doing the last 2 years. I believe they call it 'BitTorrent' - not sure it's a service run by the networks though. If it isn't, they should be.

    20. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by JWW · · Score: 1

      What I love is that its becoming more and more apparent that skipping comercials in a RECORDING is considered illegal by the MPAA, but yet if I watch something live, I can change the channel or leave the room and thats ok.

      I mean come on, this is ridiculous.

      Although I suspect that someday the MPAA may have congress make a law requiring TV to not allow you to change channels during commercials and add sensors to make sure you don't move......

    21. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Nope. The right to record on-air and on-cable programming has been established as Fair Use for decades. Add to this that the recorder has PAID for the programming.

      Distributing on Bittorrent is as evil as borrowing a friend's videotape. Which we can do.

      As for people not paying for the program they are downloading, let's rememeber that an unlimited number of people can come over to a subscriber's house and watch programming they have not paid for. And unlimited number can watch a videotape made by a subscriber. And none of this is illegal.

      The idea that the home is a metered box office is honored by legislators, but is novel to the people actually watching the TV. People don't accept the idea. They never will, no matter how much lip service is paid to the Boss Gods about watching recordings = stealing. Because it isn't stealing. A TV screen is agnostic, and can't be regulated in the real world.

      If the business model of cable operators or the MPAA can't survive bittorrent, then they will die out. Good riddance. Something else will take their place, something less commercial and predatory, perhaps more artistically democratic and cheaper to maintain. But I see no indication that they are even suffering from downloading, much less dying. The movie industry is fat and rich from DVDs and box office, the cable companies are buying each other and major film libraries; no one is hurting. Pity.

    22. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by ozric99 · · Score: 1
      That doesn't matter anymore. I was watching 24 a few days ago - a screen filled the shot for a few seconds with some huge CISCO software running - the character then said something along the lines of "oh, no, our CISCO network is self healing." I turned to my wife to comment on that blatant advertising and when I turned back the camera was zooming in on some guy typing away on an ALIENWARE laptop - the logo was on screen for a while too.

      Advertisers aren't stupid - they're getting their eyeball quota...

    23. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What should be illegal is removing the commercials, then they need to find a way to track the # of people that download a show (ie: if THEY hosted the torrent)."

      The removal of commercials is half the reason that i download tv. I would just pirate the tv in your world. there will always be someone stripping them out.

    24. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cable TV lines are usually heavily regulated on two fronts at least: the PUC (public utility comission, usually state level) and business licenses (franchise, usually locally registered).

      iow, they tend to be government granted local mini-monopolies.

      I wouldn't have a problem with your argument if cable lines were open to competition. But they aren't.

      All in all, this leads to price fixing. Trying to get around that is tyically difficult, not only as a new entrant to the market but also as a consumer/customer. $100 a month is a hell of a lot for content they typically would still profit well for selling at $40/month.

      If getting into the cable business using new or existing lines were so easy, the small dish home satellite market wouldn't have sprung up the way it did. The home satellite market came about not because of the difficulties in getting rights to broadcast or the cost of the newtorks materially but because of the barrier of entry to building the networks was so high. So they went skyward.

    25. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Durandal64 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, just like I'm allowed to walk in to the movie theater at any time because I bought a ticket but didn't show up to watch the movie.
      I bought a ticket for a specific show at a specific time. I didn't buy season tickets to the local cinema. Your analogy doesn't work.
      Oh wait... I'm not. If you didn't watch it when it ran on TV, its your own damn fault. Buy a VCR, rent it from a video store, get on-demand TV.
      Yes, it's my own damn fault that I have to have a job to pay for my cable TV which prohibits me from catching certain shows. Please explain to me what the difference is between recording the TV show in question and just downloading it. The only difference is the amount of work involved and the quality of the final product. If you're seriously arguing that I shouldn't be able to easily obtain a high-quality copy of a show, then I'd love to hear your reasoning for it.
      I'm not shedding any tears for the MPAA, but stop making ridiculous excuses to justify your infringement. If you think $100/month is too much, don't pay for it. Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to get cable TV.
      They are if I want to watch shows on HBO. And I pay for HBO because I like their original programming. But if I missed last week's episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, why the hell shouldn't I be able to download it and watch it when I please? What does HBO lose by me not watching it on TV when they want me to? If I fill out a Neilson rating, I'm going to tell them that yes, I do watch the show, regardless of whether I download it or watched it when it aired. And since those ratings determine advertising prices for commercials, no one loses anything.
    26. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "I can change the channel or leave the room and thats ok."

      Actually I remember reading some interview with one of the TV executives that said that people who skipped commericals, changed the channel, or left the room when commercials came on, were basically "stealing" and bad people.

      I see a day where after they successfully control what you can and cannot do with your TV/TiVo/VCR then they will make it mandatory to watch the commericals before programming continues, change the channel? It will pause the feed until you change back and watch the commericals that are being sent... like streaming video that pauses when you change a channel.

      They already do this to some degree in DVDs that you pay for to rent or "own", with the way you get that message "Button not available for use now" when you try to fast forward through previews, legal notices, or ads on some DVDs...

      or maybe i'm just paranoid?

    27. Re:Yeah, that's kinda the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, you can't tape a movie you are going to miss. However, you are legally allowed to tape a television show, so the line of legallity is very small when you are allowed to tape a show, but NOT download a show.

  7. Re:btefnet by Buelldozer · · Score: 0, Redundant

    From TFA:

    The six sites sued Thursday include ShunTV, Zonatracker, Btefnet, Scifi-Classics, CDDVDHeaven and Bragginrights.

  8. This Blows by bhive01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't own a TiVo, but using BitTorrent I've been watching HDTV quality shows on my PC for about 3 months. Man is it sweet. I hope those **AA bastards lose. When are they gonna learn to adopt a new distribution system rather than beat it with fancy lawyers.

    1. Re:This Blows by mangus_angus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and it's peions like you, what that kind of attitude that keep it from being legal like it should be.

    2. Re:This Blows by bhive01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is why they should embrace this distribution medium. I'd pay for a "good" TV show without commercials if I could download it for a reasonable amount. I admit I d/l all kinds of shit, but I buy the good stuff. The rest ends up in the big ole' recycle bin in the sky. Instead of suing new distribution methods, why not try it out and see if it works? my 0.02 c

    3. Re:This Blows by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I've only recently resubscribed to platinum digital cable (full everything, including dual tuner DVR and HDTV) after a couple years of not wanting it (mostly since Farscape was canceled as it was the only good thing on television). I am not a fan of cable television and I haven't watched ANY television in almost two years. Where I live, there isn't a lot to do unless you want to drive a bit and there is no television signal otherwise.

      So, to keep me sane and relax a bit after work, I ordered cable. The problem is that all of the good shows (especially on HBO) are in their second, third - even fifth season. I'd like to watch Deadwood, but I don't want to pick it up 20 episodes into the series. I also don't want to spend $50 or $100 or whatever to buy the seasons on DVD (long after they already aired and too late to keep up with the new episodes anyway). Especially when I already pay for HBO to start with!

      So, the only way to catch up has been to download episodes from bit torrent, watch them all, then start watching the series on TV. I don't see a problem with this.

    4. Re:This Blows by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Why is it so hard to understand? The vast majority of people watch tv, they don't make tv, so why does the law favour the minority and not the majority? Why, because that minority pays the even smaller minority who makes the laws to make ones that favour them.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:This Blows by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Because that would take effort, brains, and (only a little bit) cash.

      **AA is greedy, so they don't want to spend ANY cash. They like their system, and have become lazy; don't expect any effort. They obiously have brains, just look at how much cash they have and what a cozy place they set up for themselves.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:This Blows by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I also don't want to spend $50 or $100 or whatever to buy the seasons on DVD (long after they already aired and too late to keep up with the new episodes anyway). Especially when I already pay for HBO to start with! So, the only way to catch up has been to download episodes from bit torrent, watch them all, then start watching the series on TV. I don't see a problem with this.

      So, the studios are selling the shows you want to watch for $100 a season, but you are downloading them from a website for free instead. You don't see the problem with that? DVD releases of television shows are a huge cash-cow for studios that have already made their money in their initial runs.. you're screwing them out of pure profit by "stealing" the shows from the Internet. A more legit way would be to get Netflix and get the shows from there instead to catch up.

    7. Re:This Blows by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      You could always join netflix. Then put the series DVDs on your queue. Cheaper than buying and for the bandwith usually faster than downloading.

    8. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd pay for a "good" TV show without commercials if I could download it for a reasonable amount.

      The problem is "reasonable". They think reasonable is charging as much as they can and only selling to 10% of the interest audiance. Look at music tracks. $1 a track isn't reasonable (at that price I'll buy CDs), but the RIAA is trying to force it higher.

    9. Re:This Blows by muszek · · Score: 1
      I also don't want to spend $50 or $100 or whatever to buy the seasons on DVD (long after they already aired and too late to keep up with the new episodes anyway). Especially when I already pay for HBO to start with!
      You weren't HBO subsriber when those first 4 seasons were on the air, right? You're not entitled to view everything that was shown on HBO in the past 20 years just because you paid for this month. Not that I'm against stealing intellectual property, I do that all the time :). I wonder when they'll become greedy enough to chase people in poor countries (over here, in Poland, almost 100% of private computers have pirated soft installed... exclclusively - only legal software is freeware/OS). Just like those #$%@&$! drug companies sued African governments for purchasing generic anti-AIDS drugs (I might not be bringing this up 100% accurately, sorry if it's not precisely what happened).
    10. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HDTV Quality? Most of the shows I have seen listed on Torrents are derived from HDTV sources, but are scaled down to a relatively low resolution.

      They still look pretty good. Especially compared to standard definition TV. But, they are nowhere near as good as HDTV.

      Just pick up an HDTV receiver PCI card for your PC. Slap an antenna on it, then record all the shows you want. It's free and completely legal.

    11. Re:This Blows by jdreed1024 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      When are they gonna learn to adopt a new distribution system rather than beat it with fancy lawyers.

      They have one. I, for one, am happy to pay $29.95 to get a whole season's worth of, say The Simpsons, (yes, they start out at $45, but they go down after a while), or Futurama, without commercials, with deleted scenes, and often interesting directors commentary. In fact, you get a better deal than the torrents, because with shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and Futurama, when they're shown in syndication, they often cut 3-5 minutes of the episodes, and sometimes cut funny scenes. Most of the torrents still have the commercials in them, and are the syndication versions. Or, they have "ads" for all the warez kiddies who distribute them. I don't want to see that any more than I want to see ads for Pepsi when I pay $10 for a movie ticket.

      The MPAA is definitely the lesser of two evils at the moment. They know how to sell a product at a reasonable price and provide added value. Example: Most DVDs cost anywhere from $4.99 (the B-movie rack at Target) to $19.99 for the latest releases, with the average being around $12-$15. I get the movie, the trailer, and often deleted scenes or other extra footage. Compare to, say, CDs, which go from $7.99 (the cheapest I've ever seen) to $24.99, and you only get 60 minutes of music (maybe 80), liner notes if you're lucky, and that's it. And you can't tell me producing the latest big-screen Hollywood blockbuster movie is *cheaper* than a recording studio session, even with digital special effects and all that.

      This is not to say the MPAA is the way and the light, we all know about their crusade to kill the VCR, and Jack Valenti comparing it to the Boston Strangler, but at this particular point in time, I think they have just a little bit more clue than the RIAA.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    12. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, what language were you attempting to speak, again?

    13. Re:This Blows by Kpt+Kill · · Score: 1

      I already do pay for the show. I pay my cable fees.

    14. Re:This Blows by StratoChief66 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm the same way, but I'd rather pay by watching the commercials, even if there were twice as many. The convenience factor of being able to download and watch new and old shows whenever I want is astounding. I'm currently watching a bunch of new shows (Daily Show, Lost) and old shows (season 1 Scrubs, Quantum Leap) I download because they are no longer on the tv on at decent times. If they put commercials into the downloads I would still watch the shows and maybe feel a little better about doing it. (Not like I care about the MPAA, they can eat my asshole but I'd like to support the actors and hard working crew)

      --
      Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
    15. Re:This Blows by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      I'd pay for a "good" TV show without commercials if I could download it for a reasonable amount.

      Hell, i'd download it with the commercials intact.

      At it stands, I have to go to the local home improvement store, buy some damn 75ohm cable and re-do the run to my PC just so I can get a signal that's worth a crap. Been meaning to do this for some time, but I haven't bothered because downloading provides a more than adquate image without fuzz.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    16. Re:This Blows by Saeger · · Score: 1
      You don't see the problem with that? DVD releases of television shows are a huge cash-cow

      I have a problem with ANY cashcow, but especially the artificially scarce variety. "Intellectual property" is a perpetual monopoly which doesn't play nice with free markets (or promoting progress for that matter).

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    17. Re:This Blows by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Quite frankly, ever since I saw the HD Demos that Apple has put up (and comparing some of the DVDs I have to some of the HD Broadcast rips) I can only conclude that DVDs look like crap.

      I really really really hope that the guys start ripping using the H.264 codec next season, then the HD content would look even sweeter.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    18. Re:This Blows by great+throwdini · · Score: 1

      You're overlooking several reasons why DVDs appear to be "cheaper" when compared to CDs. Realize that DVDs represent a repackaging of existing content pre-produced for prior distribution and profit. Home video is an aftermarket, even though studios increasingly rely on it to turn break-even flicks into profitable ones.

      The money spent on mastering, manufacturing, distribution, and the occasional extra doesn't amount to a great deal of cost when averaged over the typical mass market DVD title. A great deal of the cost to produce the movie itself has been covered through theatrical release. Initial VHS/DVD release meets any revenue shortfalls and then goes on to pad the bottom line. Furthermore, in what has become a habit for a number of studios, popular titles are rereleased three to twelve months later as "special edition" DVDs to double-dip the home theatre crowd.

      Albums (sidestepping "best of" or other compilations) exist as the primary consumer medium for the music generated by mainstream artists. The profit has to be made on the CD, as people don't attend concerts on nearly the same scale as they do movie theatres. Even though manufacturing and distribution costs are on par with DVDs, recording labels are looking to CD sales for the bulk of its profits, whereas the movie studios treat DVD sales as a way to profit a second (and third, etc.) time on material already sold to the public in another form and so can lower pricing to hit a "sweet spot" to tempt consumers to buy rather than rent.

      The movie studios may seem a bit more savvy than the record labels at first glance -- and perhaps they really are -- but the revenue stream represented by DVDs is not truly analogous to that of CDs for record labels, even though they both are disc-based media.

    19. Re:This Blows by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's missing the point that you CAN'T watch previous seasons even if you pay for them, to catch up to the current seasons. Most TV shows lag in DVD release by a couple or more years from the current season. There are some exceptions, but - for example - you didn't see X-Files Season One for sale as soon as Season Two started airing on television.

      It's in their best interest to offer some sort of on-demand system for _all_ previous episodes of their own programming, if they want people to be interested and tune into their _current_ programming.

    20. Re:This Blows by SB5 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't want to wait the 6 more months to buy the DVDs to the second season of the L-Word, it would be nice to download it now. Maybe I don't have a TiVo, but I have a computer, and missed the Simpsons the past two weeks, why can't I download them?

      --
      If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
      it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
    21. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Most of the torrents still have the commercials in them, and are the syndication versions. Or, they have "ads" for all the warez kiddies who distribute them.

      What? I've been downloading TV torrents for over a year now, and I have yet to see one with any of the commercials left in or any warez group ads added. I've never seen TV warez groups release a recorded-off-the-air version when a DVD version is available either (as would be the case with your syndicated-and-edited episodes).

      Either you have an unnatural talent for finding the absolute crappiest warez sources, or you're just making shit up. I'm guessing the latter.

    22. Re:This Blows by FrogPad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally I don't always have the time to sit down and start a new TV series, or always catch a show each week. My schedule is very up and down. HDTV torrents have allowed me to watch a show that I have missed, and actually have started me on a few new tv series. For example, a friend told me about a show called House M.D. so I checked out a HDTV torrrent and actually like the show, I now watch it regularly each week (sitting happily through the commercials). My point is this. I will not pay for HDTV torrent downloads. I already pay 60 dollars a month on digital cable, I'm not going to shell out 2.99 per episode. However, because of the torrent files it has allowed me to get started on a new series, and hit up a missed episode (and I therefore continue to watch that series). What's good about this is, it is not TV producers bandwidth. They didn't pay for marketing. If this service wasn't available I wouldn't have watched the show. Now... yes, yes. I understand that they are losing their advertising revenue. The question I have though, is WHY? Why not just adopt the model. Come out with a mpeg4 high-quality codec that "forces" you to watch the commercials. I would sit through the commercials... that is fine. If I don't want commercials I buy the DVD's of those episdoes. For this to work: 1. Downloads have to be as fast as current torrent files. 2. The quality must be better or equal to the current torrent standard. 3. It must be easy to get the episodes. Commercials could even be "live" so to speak. They could be cut in depending on many factors. If I like horses then advertise horses to me. If I like candy then advertise chocolate.

    23. Re:This Blows by rawket.scientist · · Score: 1

      When are they gonna learn to adopt a new distribution system rather than beat it with fancy lawyers.

      They'll learn when their lawsuits stop discouraging people, or when Napster goes back to being free, whichever happens first. But I'm not holding my breath on either one happening. I know music and movie downloads still continue, and I know that where there's a will to pirate content (or just exercise fair use in a way that isn't profitable to the rights holders), there's a way. It would be stupid, though, to pretend that downloaders are still enjoying the unfettered use that they had in, say, 1999.

      --
      John Hancock wuz here.
    24. Re:This Blows by GrassMunk · · Score: 1

      exactly. Why am i stuck watching TV on their schedule. If they want to stop me from watching your shows FILLED with product placement that fine. I dont have the time to be a slave to their schedule, nor do i have the want to worry about some shitty VCR tape. Ive tasted the future and frankly the shows aren't even that great just something to bide my time on saturday/sunday morning when i have a spare moment. Not everyone wants to live by your schedule.

      So, wanna stop us fine. Cause in the end ill just stop watching all together. You thought you had a hard time advertising to my generation before? Wait until none of us watch television.

    25. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the torrents still have the commercials in them
      None I have ever received has had the commercials in them. IRC i$ 2 l33t 4 u?

    26. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, jdreed1024 (443938) is NOT a paid lobbyist for the MPAA.

      Also, based on brilliant comments like this:

      'Most of the torrents still have the commercials in them'

      He clearly knows what he is taking about and is NOT, under any circumstances, smoking crack.

      I get the movie trailer when I buy the DVD? Rock! You're right, jd, that's value-added, baby! I'm sold, where's my Discover card?

    27. Re:This Blows by badasscat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I really really really hope that the guys start ripping using the H.264 codec next season, then the HD content would look even sweeter.

      Ok, Apple's somehow really brainwashed people with this H.264 thing.

      It's a good codec, but it's just the latest version of MPEG-4. And Apple's not the only company to use it either (Nero Digital AVC is H.264, for example).

      Apple gets good results because they use fairly high bit rates and spend time on the encoding. But honestly, WMV-HD, which is based on an older MPEG-4 codec, looks just as good to my eyes. It just doesn't compress quite as well (and we're talking a couple of hundred kbps difference; they're not worlds apart).

      Anyway, DivX, which is what most of these HDTV shows on BT sites are compressed with, is actually using pretty much the same codec as WMV-HD. It can look just as good as Apple's H.264 stuff. Obviously, though, you're talking a 350MB file for a 44 minute show (60 minutes sans commercials) vs. a 350MB file for a 1 minute trailer, in Apple's case. The bit rate is heavily compressed on the files you can get on BT sites, and the resolution is also lowered in the interests of file size for downloading.

      Now, as for what's going on with these lawsuits, it really strikes me as stupid. The TV networks give this stuff away over the airwaves! I understand that they own the exclusive distribution rights, but you know what the obvious solution then is? Offer the damn shows up for download (not streaming) complete with commercials, from the TV station's official site. Simple! Make them low quality divx files just like we get from BT for all I care. I will happily skip over the commercials, but you know what? I do this anyway with my MCE machine, and there's not a damn thing they can do to stop me. So I don't see how they really lose anything from this proposition, and they'd regain their internet distribution for themselves.

      Here's an example of why this pisses me off. Tonight MS had the good sense (sarcasm) to schedule their Xbox 360 show at the same time as the Apprentice, which I normally watch. I only have a single tuner. So what do I do? I watch the MS thing and miss the Apprentice. Why do the networks not want me to now see the Apprentice that I missed, complete with the same commercials I would have skipped over anyway if that's how they want it? Why not just give me the stupid show as a free SD-quality download an hour or two after it originally aired?

      (btw, I say that knowing that I personally would not be helping them any with my commercial skipping, but the point is the same number of people who watch commercials normally are still gonna watch them on a downloaded file, especially if they're still watching on a TV. The people who don't watch commercials aren't gonna watch them no matter what, and even if they're forced to they're not gonna pay any attention.)

      If they're worried about overseas or affiliate distribution, a) put up a country block similar to the one the BBC used for their online Olympic coverage (this was pretty effective - I managed to get around it using an anonymous proxy but it was hellishly unreliable, and 99% of the world would not know how to do this), and b) put the downloads on a time delay such that no show goes up until the last affiliate has screened it.

      Why is this such a complicated idea? Which makes more sense, to try to sue every bittorrent site out of existence or to proactively retake their own online distribution back? Online distribution is not going away, the question is whether or not the networks want to control it themselves or cede it to others. (And by using lawsuits as their only strategy, they are ceding it to others... they will never stamp out file sharing completely and they should know it. They need to provide a compelling alternative themselves.)

    28. Re:This Blows by iamghetto · · Score: 1

      ...using BitTorrent I've been watching HDTV quality shows on my PC...

      Technically speaking, chances are you're not watching anything close to HD quality. Most shows that are ripped and uploaded as "HD" are about 1/4 of the lowest end proper HD resolution. The shows listed as HD shows on the torrent sites are usually 600ish by 330ish pixels.

      Actual 720p HD is 1280x720.

      I few select shows are ripped in what is called HRHD (high resolution high definition), but even these are a few hundred pixels short in either direction of having 720p's resolution.

      And having watched some HRHD torrents on my TV, I can tell you that they don't compare in quality to the true 720p HD programming on cable.

      All I'm saying is that these torrents masquerading as HD or even HRHD don't do true paid for HD justice.

    29. Re:This Blows by doormat · · Score: 1

      One thing not mentioned is censorship, and how scared networks are of the FCC. Hell, a crude but funny as hell line from Futurama was edited out when it got replayed on Cartoon network's [adult swim] at 11pm at night (something about fry's lower horn being jerked).

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    30. Re:This Blows by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      But the way you say it, you seem to think that what you're doing is hunky dory? How are the creators/actors of the shows you're watching getting paid for creating this work you so fervently watch?

      You don't have a right to just get it for free...

      Would you be prepared to pay for this as a distribution method? How about $x per season of whatever show? Although it would be rights managed to stop you copying it and sending it on to others, as then they would see it without the creators getting money all over again.

      If so, then fine... but don't assume you have the god given right to download the shows these guys work damn hard on creating for free... you don't.

    31. Re:This Blows by knightri · · Score: 0

      NO NO NO..paying 30 dollars for a seasons of simpsons is not a good deal..u have got to be fucking kidding me bro

      --
      'Or else pizza is going to order out for you'
    32. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most of the torrents still have the commercials in them, and are the syndication versions. Or, they have "ads" for all the warez kiddies who distribute them.
      This is completely wrong, troll.
    33. Re:This Blows by KillShill · · Score: 1

      why should you pay them 45 or 29.99?

      they clearly made far more than that on the first run and then to make things absurd, makes gigantic profits each year from syndication.

      (btw, 1 season of any star trek = 100 bucks?! wtf are you smoking to think that anyone but the most rich could afford that... or would even if they could)

      give it to me for 5 bucks per season and be happy that i'm willing to buy it AGAIN. i already paid for it once by watching it on tv and then again during syndication.

      apart from a few shows (and even thats negotiable), tv is garbage.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    34. Re:This Blows by zaroastra · · Score: 1

      I, for one, am happy to pay $29.95
      I'm glad you are. I'm glad there will always be people like you.
      That doesnt take away the fact that I wouldnt be happy to pay. Not that I could mind you, my money has more important places to go.
      OTOH, I've only downloaded a couple of BT's. Not enough time to see them as well (money around here is hard to earn, those 30$ is about 2 days pay, so much overtime involved)
      And I liked it, and they didn't had any comercials or crap as you are saying (prolly BS, as someone says, if your shows had, you didnt really searched for them), but most of all, they were free, and I wouldnt even consider them if they werent.

      I take with DVD's and BT the same aproach I have for year for CD's and mp3 ripping/sharing.

      I rip what I like from whatever sources I find.
      I download that one or other hard to find that I like.
      I buy the ones that I really like, and that I think deserve the money. As I dont have as much money as I wish, that amounts to a dozen music cds (of bands you prolly never heard about) and a couple DVD's each year.

      If you dont think is fair, I'm glad I dont live in a country where you could do something about it, and wish you lived here to hear you say that.

      --
      I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
    35. Re:This Blows by mbaciarello · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a foreigner who happens to like some American TV shows, I'd like to add a point...

      Aside from pricing, which you may or may not agree with, resorting to season DVDs has one huge disadvantage for me: inability to try before you buy.

      Take Firefly. I read very good comments on Slashdot. I thought I'd like to give it a shot. What better way than the pilot episode? Whoops, no one (I'm aware of) sells only that.

      The show does not, and most likely will not ever air in my country. Even if it did, that would be on pay satellite TV, and it would be dubbed: that, I couldn't stand.

      I could buy the complete series on DVD but... What if I don't like it? At $35 plus around $15-20 for shipping and (in worst cases) 30% customs duty, it's quite an investment on a show I've never even seen an ad for... (Except for Slashvertisement, that is... :-)

      DVDs are not an option in these cases, although I admit they represent only a small fraction of online piracy. However, there are many countries which might collectively represent a decent market for a show like Firefly, and where dubbing is not the routine (as opposed to subtitling.) These markets, IMO, are not fully exploitable until content is delivered in a more granular way than DVDs -- the "iTunes Video Store" way?

    36. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any y'all /.ers ever read Infinite Jest?

      I never thought I'd use the word "prescient" w/r/t David Foster Wallace. I think the man is a tool, but this time, he seems to have nailed it.

    37. Re:This Blows by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Sound tracks blows this theory out of the water.

      Maximum Overdrive DVD $9.98

      Who Made Who $14.99

      You simply cannot convice me that the cost of producing a movie AND a soundtrack comes even close to the cost of producing just a sound track. You also will not convice me that the only way that the people involved with producing sound tracks can only make a profit through the seperate sale of those soundtracks. It's just not that big of a genre.

      That's right. Look again. The soundtrack to the movie costs 150% of the cost of buying the whole movie.

    38. Re:This Blows by BackInIraq · · Score: 1

      And you can't tell me producing the latest big-screen Hollywood blockbuster movie is *cheaper* than a recording studio session, even with digital special effects and all that.

      Yes, but I can tell you that nearly every Hollywood blockbuster more than covers its cost to produce in revenue from theatrical release. So unless there are some _damn_ expensive "special features" on that DVD, it's pretty much pure profit.

    39. Re:This Blows by thenameisbam · · Score: 1

      i too am happy to buy the whole season of a show, however it takes like 2-4 freaken years to come out on dvd. look at scrubs, its in its 4th season, but they only recently released it on dvd. and what about show from england, that i cant get on dvd or show that are so short lived that they dont put them on dvd. as i said i'm happy to buy them and normaly do even if i downloaded them. but the fact is that they take to long to put them on dvd, freaking movies come out faster, and are cheeper! torrenting shows is a quick way of doing it! end of story.

    40. Re:This Blows by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Actually I have done some ripping with the H.264 codec using Handbrake on some of my DVDs and I cannot tell a difference between an Episode of Stargate SG1 compressed with it and the same Episode playing straight from DVD.

      Using the MPEG4 Layer 10 (I think that's the "official" title) the resulting file has a combined bitrate of ~1000kBit/s which results in a file roughly 335MB in size.

      I wish I had some HD source material right now to see how that would look if being compressed, alas right now I don't have really the option.

      Granted though that Apple is doing some nifty bitrate juggeling with their HD Promos, but if you look at the Nasa Reel that's pretty sweet. It is 1 Minute and 1 Second long and 46MB in size, if they would have dropped the resolution a tad they could probably have squeezed it in even smaller.

      But even so, if you do the math you'll see that you would get an hour movie in ~3GB which is a lot of data but ohh so sweet and with new Capacities becoming available I recon with in two years you can use this probably even over the net.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    41. Re:This Blows by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not even paying for TV, or the commercials. It's that I can't get good TV in Germany, cause those bastards translate all the original language (and synced lips and sound) and puns away.

      And most shows and movies don't run in Germany, only those they bother to translate. And even then they run several months after the US start, at the earliest.

      Why can't I just watch TV online, or download movies and TV series for pay? What's the MPAA's f***ing problem??

      Hey, even downloading recorded TV with commercials would be fine. Skipping commercials would be just as hard as doing that with a VHS or DVR...

    42. Re:This Blows by dougmc · · Score: 1
      something about fry's lower horn being jerked
      Are you sure? I watched that episode last night on Adult Swim, and specifically remember hearing something about jerked, and then `it's used to it ... woooo!'

      (The `woooo!' joke gets very old by the end of the show, I might add.)

      Apparantly Cartoon Network has been known to censor other parts of the show as well, so maybe I'm just thinking of something else.

    43. Re:This Blows by shmlco · · Score: 1
      I also don't want to spend $50 or $100 or whatever to buy...

      "I don't want to" pretty much sums up the whole problem, doesn't it?

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    44. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The HD in the discription is about the source, not the format of the final rip. The HD rips are from HDTV broadcasts, shrunk down to something playable for most people.

      However, rippers tend to do stupid things like compensate for TV vs PC aspect ratio differences, which is why you see 640x480 rips instead of 720x480. The odd resolution looks right when played/viewed on a PC using a braindead player.

    45. Re:This Blows by boron+boy · · Score: 1
      I, for one, am happy to pay $29.95 to get a whole season's worth

      Translation: I, for one, welcome our new MPAA overlords.

    46. Re:This Blows by great+throwdini · · Score: 1
      That's right. Look again. The soundtrack to the movie costs 150% of the cost of buying the whole movie.

      I believe your second link should have been Who Made Who which appears to be out of print. I'm not sure where you're pulling a $15 MSRP on a non-existent album. In this case, I don't quite see the evidence, but I get your drift. Maximum Overdrive is a poor example, as its a dated film with barebones and underengineered DVD release to the point where the studio behind it is just minting money off a product retread. The price point is intended to hit impulse buys ... who's going to throw down $20-$25 on a slapdash mastering of Maximum Overdrive? :)

      You simply cannot convice me that the cost of producing a movie AND a soundtrack comes even close to the cost of producing just a sound track. You also will not convice me that the only way that the people involved with producing sound tracks can only make a profit through the seperate sale of those soundtracks. It's just not that big of a genre.

      And I'm not going to attempt to convince you on those points. I would question your assumption that soundtracks don't show sell-through figures - look at the growth of the soundtrack as a cross-merchandising opportunity in the last twenty years and the number released (the burgeoning genre of TV soundtracks for teenie-bopper shows like today's O.C. is a good example) each year. Modern film/television soundtracks (and not scores, which are another matter) are the perfect example of two industries profiting off what both can bring to the table in a joint venture.

      Seriously, I never claimed that neither movie studios nor record labels will seek to pocket as much profit as they can when given the opportunity. My point is that both parties, in seeking to maximize profits, cannot approach CDs and DVDs as interchangeable goods simply because they happen to utilize similar technologies. Nowhere did I state that the cost of their endeavors is equivalent, only that movie studios have already hit consumers up at least once (through theatrical release or rental, unless you're the odd duck who purchases DVDs blind) before the typical DVD purchase is made. This is simply not the case for original run CDs, where record labels need to profit off the media sale first and foremost.

      The relation to actual cost is arbitrary, but it seems pretty clear to me that movie studios get a lot of people coming and going.

      As an aside, this notion that DVDs magically all cost $10-$15 (as I often see bandied about in making the apples-to-oranges comparison of DVDs to CDs) is poppycock. They don't, with pricing over a rather wide range based on target consumer audience and the nature of the material (e.g. library titles v. first-run releases).

      These are different products with different markets and financial dynamics. To take the price of a random CD and a random DVD (or some guesstimate of what they "average") and proclaim that the backers of one medium compared to another are more "with it" or "less greedy" grossly simplifies reality.

      Soundtracks ... ? You don't really think the record labels are the only ones who profit one way or another there, do you?

      And in the sad case of Maximum Overdrive, the movie studio has the wonderful opportunity to rerelease it again as an SE or CE for another run a profit (hitting up buyers of the bare version for another sale), whereas the best the soundtrack can hope for is a reissue which owners of its initial run have no reason to purchase a second time. The mechanics of profit are simply not equivalent between the two media. There are similarities, and yes, both sets of content producers are out to make a buck, but direct cost comparison is a bit short-sighted.

    47. Re:This Blows by ShamanDave · · Score: 1

      But the way you say it, you seem to think that what you're doing is hunky dory? How are the creators/actors of the shows you're watching getting paid for creating this work you so fervently watch?

      Um... They get paid (indirectly) by the advertisers who purchase commercial time on their shows. At least that's how they're paid for the broadcasts we're talking about recording and sharing. I've never heard that advertisers are paying less because people skip commercials with their VCRs or mute the commercials or go get a snack when watching live TV.

      DVD rips are another matter. In that case, sharing does cut into the profits and therefore the residuals that are paid to creators and actors. That's why I only really download recorded broadcasts. If I like a show enough to want a quality copy to keep, I buy the DVDs.

    48. Re:This Blows by BurnFEST · · Score: 1
      something about fry's lower horn being jerked
      "It's use to it...WHHOOOoooo!" - Bender
    49. Re:This Blows by shmlco · · Score: 1
      The vast majority of people watch tv, they don't make tv...

      I think that distinction is pretty much meaningless. More people eat bread than bake it. More people drive cars than make them. Consumers, in any field, almost always outnumber the producers by several orders of magnitude.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    50. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are obviously trading at the bottom of the barrel. I get high quality HDTV torrents with AC3 audio. NO ads. You're a moron; your comments say it all.

    51. Re:This Blows by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yes, and for that exact reason we don't have laws that say you can't share your bread, or car with your friends and neighbours. There no laws that favour bakers or car manufacturers over the people who consume the goods they make. In fact, there's a whole bunch of laws that control how bakers bake bread and car manufacturers make cars which actually to the disadvantage of the manufacturer.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    52. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Professor: Sweet Zombie Jesus! -> Sweet Zombie *****!

    53. Re:This Blows by Ath · · Score: 1
      You're overlooking several reasons why DVDs appear to be "cheaper" when compared to CDs. Realize that DVDs represent a repackaging of existing content pre-produced for prior distribution and profit. Home video is an aftermarket, even though studios increasingly rely on it to turn break-even flicks into profitable ones.

      All very valid, but that is only the supply side of the equation. There is also the demand side. On the demand side, you have a potential consumer base deciding where to spend their discretionary funds. Therefore, the demand side does not distinguish between a CD and a DVD based on the cost of production or the profit model. A consumer will only decide which entertainment item provides the best value for the money.

      If the supply side has an inefficient model that does not match up or compete well on the demand side, then the result is that the profitability decreases or even disappears. Such is life under capitalism. The reason why CDs and DVDs are a valid comparison is that they are usually competing for the same consumers.

    54. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, you get a better deal than the torrents, because with shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and Futurama, when they're shown in syndication, they often cut 3-5 minutes of the episodes, and sometimes cut funny scenes.

      Where are you getting your torrents from? If there's a DVD available, then DVD-Rip torrents are almost always available. Even when there's no DVD available, there are never ads in the episodes. I've been downloading most of my TV shows for over three years, and I've never seen ads left in.

      Or, they have "ads" for all the warez kiddies who distribute them. I don't want to see that any more than I want to see ads for Pepsi when I pay $10 for a movie ticket.

      This is extremely rare... and when it does happen, it's a short 5-10 second logo at the beginning. Much like the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare. I can live with that. If it annoys you that much, just edit out the first ten seconds.

    55. Re:This Blows by Matrix2110 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...They need to provide a compelling alternative themselves.

      Mod Parent up!

      He truly has it in that statement.

      On the other hand what the actions of the MPAA did today was drive this whole thing into the undernet.

      I have not seen so much irc activity as I did just a few minutes ago when I looked around.

      I guess the ISP's are going to be looking at a sharp increase in newsgroup and irc traffic.

      And of course a whole new generation of savvy users as well.

    56. Re:This Blows by d474 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I pay about $50/month for my COX cable internet connection. I don't think that downloading the occasional "Daily Show" is going to hurt anyone financially. Think about it:

      All this "stealing" talk is bullshit. The logical end to it is that if you "pay" for TV cable channels, but don't "watch" the shows, are you "stealing" from the advertisers because you chose never to watch the show? NO. So how is it stealing if you down load a show YOU NEVER WATCHED IN THE FIRST PLACE??? Virtual Insanity.

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    57. Re:This Blows by d474 · · Score: 2, Funny
      "What? I've been downloading TV torrents for over a year now, and I have yet to see one with any of the commercials left in or any warez group ads added."
      HA!! GOTCHA!! This is the MPAA, and you my friend, are so busted! You can look forward to our letter in the mail in 2 days. We bought Slashdot 4 months ago. CmdrTaco is now part of our legal team. All your IP address are belong to us!
      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    58. Re:This Blows by RafoCdBS · · Score: 1

      put the downloads on a time delay such that no show goes up until the last affiliate has screened it. The problem with this is that Olympics only need LIVE commentaries from journalists, while TV shows need to be dubbed. For a movie to be dubbed in every single language it takes a loooooooooong time. Thus, waiting for a show to be dubbed then aired everywhere before uploading it to the WWW is too much of a waiting, especially for those from the country the show comes from (US mostly).

    59. Re:This Blows by slriv · · Score: 1

      "syndication, they often cut 3-5 minutes of the episodes, and sometimes cut funny scenes. Most of the torrents still have the commercials in them, and are the syndication versions. Or, they have "ads" for all the warez kiddies who distribute them. I don't want to see that any more than I want to see ads for Pepsi when I pay $10 for a movie ticket."

      Um...

      I've never seen an ad in ANY of the 500 gig of TV shows I've downloaded. The warez kiddies don't insert their own, and the only case where I've seen one do that was a dvd rip I downloaded (which btw, I purchased after viewing and liking it).

      And btw, I did download all of the Battlestar Galactica episodes, then tivo'd them when they FINALLY broadcast in the US and just recently purchased the DVD set of the season. Now multiply this experience to basically all the shows I've enjoyed this season, and you see the MPAA, NAB and all the other FBI wanna-be's are really just encouraging me to NOT give them money.

      --
      All the worlds a stage, and I'm the guy running the lights...
    60. Re:This Blows by Matrix2110 · · Score: 1

      I have to take my previous post back.

      After spending a chunk of time in irc watching ten thousand people begging for the latest "OC" torrent is a tad discouraging.

      Oh, Well.

    61. Re:This Blows by Silverlancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would cost me 30 bucks per DVD (with 7 DVDs!) to get a badly translated first season of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. Or I could spend a few hours downloading a better translation, with subs that are easier to read, completely for free.

      At least in my experience, downloaded TV shows are far, far superior to what you will find on a DVD, if not simply from the ease of use perspective. For example, if one of my friends wants to watch a show, I can grab two DVD-RWs, copy everything onto them, and give them to him. Can't do that as easily for 7 DVDs.

    62. Re:This Blows by slriv · · Score: 1

      Good post.

      I only disagree about the commercials. The commerccials are not useful for the content, and if I pay to download the broadcast, I don't want to be hammered with ads for feminine products and crap cars.

      --
      All the worlds a stage, and I'm the guy running the lights...
    63. Re:This Blows by dnixon112 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why do the networks not want me to now see the Apprentice that I missed


      Because they want to sell you that episode on DVD later.
    64. Re:This Blows by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Ok, Apple's somehow really brainwashed people with this H.264 thing.
      --snip--
      Apple's not the only company to use it either

      They've got you brainwashed, too, if you see H.264 and think the poster must be referring to Apple.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    65. Re:This Blows by Spl0it · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I also don't want to spend $50 or $100 or whatever to buy the seasons on DVD (long after they already aired and too late to keep up with the new episodes anyway). Especially when I already pay for HBO to start with! So, the only way to catch up has been to download episodes from bit torrent, watch them all, then start watching the series on TV. I don't see a problem with this. So, the studios are selling the shows you want to watch for $100 a season, but you are downloading them from a website for free instead. You don't see the problem with that? DVD releases of television shows are a huge cash-cow for studios that have already made their money in their initial runs.. you're screwing them out of pure profit by "stealing" the shows from the Internet. A more legit way would be to get Netflix and get the shows from there instead to catch up.
      You're kidding right? I pay $100 + tax for internet and cable television. If I have hockey, or work, or some other activity and miss a scheduled program, I sure as hell have a right to download it and watch it. I should have to wait, a couple of years, and pay $100 for a box or dvd set, when I've already paid over $600+ a year for cable television in the first place. Just because I forgot to Tape it, or have neglected to buy a TV-IN card for my computer doesn't mean I don't have the right to watch TV content that I've already paid to watch and missed it due to whatever.

      It's people like you that push coporate agenda, honestly... paying $600+ a year for cable TV, * 10 years... yes thats a lot of f***ing money and I'm not about to go waste $100 to catch a few shows I missed. If I like a series (aka family guy) I will purchase the DVD's after, but to pay $100 to catch a few missed episodes about a series I'm perhaps interested in.... what a JOKE!
      --

      No, this is
    66. Re:This Blows by LordSnooty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...They need to provide a compelling alternative themselves. Mod Parent up! He truly has it in that statement.

      Absolutely. Maybe the MPAA should be offering a second option when they sue a trading site

      1. Close down now & pay us money....or...
      2. Hand the site over to us, along with all technology, get everyone involved to agree to work for the network/content distributor for 6 months, here's masters of our programmes, get encoding, leave the adverts in, and keep the damn thing going, since it isn't depriving anyone of revenue. Quick $5 fee for users, and you suddenly have a revenue stream, without lifting a finger.

    67. Re:This Blows by great+throwdini · · Score: 1
      The reason why CDs and DVDs are a valid comparison is that they are usually competing for the same consumers.

      I would actually counter with the proposal that both movie and music markets are highly segmented, and that on a number of fronts they are not direct competition to one another for the same entertainment dollar uniformly. Other than, as you point out, the gross analysis of discretionary income. That is, the type of entertainment and utility of a movie on DVD is not that of a series of songs on CD, and determination of "best value" involves much more than simply how much either costs.

      I don't believe movie studios consider which albums are about to hit stores when setting release schedules, nor do I think the reverse is true, either. That is, excepting cross-market promotional appeals such as soundtracks.

      Your suggestion, though true in a very general sense, strikes me as a backdoor to the notion that albums and movies are interchangeable goods. They're not wholly so.

    68. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The rest ends up in the big ole' recycle bin in the sky."

      That's the 'great bit bucket in the sky'. Kids these days!

    69. Re:This Blows by DavesWorld334 · · Score: 1
      They know how to sell a product at a reasonable price and provide added value.

      Some studios know how to sell a product at a reasonable price.

      Buffy the Vampire Slayer Third Season, 22 episodes, 6 discs, US$46, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 06RCNX/qid=1115987644/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-088309 5-5083010?v=glance&s=dvd

      Simpsons Third Season, 24 episodes, 4 discs, US$33 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 067DNE/qid=1115987840/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-088309 5-5083010?v=glance&s=dvd

      Stargate Third Season, 22 episodes, 5 discs, US$53, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 08PC0W/qid=1115987554/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-088309 5-5083010?v=glance&s=dvd

      Others, however, apparently only know how to price themselves out of the sweet spot

      Babylon 5 Third Season (22 episodes, 6 discs) US$80 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 09OOFK/qid=1115987327/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-088309 5-5083010?v=glance&s=dvd

      Star Trek: TNG Fifth Season (22 episodes, 7 discs) US$112 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000063V8T/ qid%3D1115987479/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr_11_1/103-08830 95-5083010

    70. Re:This Blows by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 1

      Now, as for what's going on with these lawsuits, it really strikes me as stupid. The TV networks give this stuff away over the airwaves!

      Ya know, the RIAA didn't buy that argument with music that the radio stations give away for free over the airwaves.

      --
      "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
    71. Re:This Blows by JeTmAn81 · · Score: 1

      You're right about the Maximum Overdrive thing, but I can personally vouch for the fact that when I bought Pink Floyd's The Wall album on cd, it cost at least $5 more than the movie The Wall on DVD did(these purchases occurred around the same time, several years ago). The two-cd album is $30 frickin' bucks MINIMUM, anywhere you go, all because it's packed in that stupid huge double case. There are very few packages like this (the White album is another), but the fact that any exist at all is infuriating to me.

      --
      "Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare -- a pumpkin with a gun."
    72. Re:This Blows by MatthewHays · · Score: 1

      What if they make the commercials very short(5 seconds etc), ie too quick to fast forward through and they insert them at random transitions during the show? That way, the networks can offer the shows for download and be pretty sure we'll see all the adverts. Not too sure if that would suck to watch though, certainly would be a happy medium at least?

    73. Re:This Blows by itchy92 · · Score: 1

      One thing not mentioned is censorship, and how scared networks are of the FCC.

      Actually, in your particular example, it has nothing to do with the FCC. The FCC only regulates local (over-the-air) broadcasts, not cable/satellite or subscription services (That's why all the CBS affiliate stations got fined for the Nipple Incident, not CBS).

      Some(most) cable channels do apply their own censorship simply to appease their demographics and to not alienate sponsors, but there is no governing body prohibiting them from broadcasting whatever they want.

      As a side note, I find it hard to believe Adult Swim would censor anything shown on network television, or really anything at all.... i [heart] adult swim.

      --
      Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
    74. Re:This Blows by Travelsonic · · Score: 1
      You can't distribute copyrighted material, numbnuts.


      Oh yeah? Then why are artists putting fee/legal music up on Dmusic.com then and are asking for it to be shared? Oh yea, because they give permission to do so. You can share copyrighted works if and only if you have the proper permissions to do so. Not never like you state, not always like *some* say, but sometimes.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    75. Re:This Blows by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't have a right to just get it for free...

      I already pay for cable. I already pay for every fucking show aired during the entire month on every channel I have access to. But like most folks I end up missing shows, or discovering a decent show halfway through the season - and in this case owning a VCR doesn't help.

      BitTorrent, however, allows me to catch up on a series, or to get a show that I forgot about and missed. I've already paid for the ability to watch these shows; how is this any different than the time-shifting you do with a VCR? If I had a monster VCR (or Tivo-like device) capable of recording every channel 24/7 then I could do exactly what I do with BitTorrent, only legally, but such a device doesn't exist. I fail to see the distinction, except that the possibility exists that someone who doesn't subscribe to cable will also get the show. And in this case I say so what? It's not like the distributor is losing sales to someone who wouldn't subscribe to cable in the first place. And there exists the possibility that someone who gets addicted to a show or three will decide to get cable when he or she otherwise wouldn't.

      If the companies that distributed these shows made them available for download themselves then I'd go to their sites and grab them. Commercials or not, I'll happily take faster transfer rates and higher quality over a torrent any day of the week. In fact, I'd be willing to give up cable altogether and subscribe to such a service because then I'd never have to worry about recording a show I'd otherwise miss, or not being able to find old episodes of an ongoing series I just discovered, or trying to find old shows that I want to watch over again just for kicks. I'd pay MORE for such a service than I ever would for cable.

      There's a huge, untapped market out there for just such a service. The first company that jumps into the waters and provides precisely this is going to make a killing. Sure, local TV companies will lose out but so the fuck what? Times change, technologies change, new companies are born, old ones die. That's capitalism and that's the way it's supposed to be. Hanging on to a dead or dying past is for losers.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    76. Re:This Blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's "peons", you tool.

    77. Re:This Blows by dlZ · · Score: 1

      I've seen a few that still had commercials in them, and it was interesting seeing local ads for another part of the country, especially compared to our local ads. But it's only been a few, maybe a handful, out of who knows how many missed episodes (before I got that lovely DVR for no additional charge from my cable company.)

      --
      rm -rf ./evidence @ punkcomp
    78. Re:This Blows by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They have one. I, for one, am happy to pay $29.95 to get a whole season's worth of, say The Simpsons, (yes, they start out at $45, but they go down after a while), or Futurama, without commercials, with deleted scenes, and often interesting directors commentary.

      Great. I'll pay you $45 for last week's episode on an official DVD.

      Most of the torrents still have the commercials in them, and are the syndication versions. Or, they have "ads" for all the warez kiddies who distribute them.

      I've never seen a TV show with commercials. I've never seen one with ads any more than a few seconds at the begining or a very non-intrusive watermark in a corner.

    79. Re:This Blows by mangus_angus · · Score: 1

      sorry I took english lessons from Dan Quayle....

    80. Re:This Blows by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      Except that the less people that actually watch the show, and rather watch via downloads, and therefore don't see the ads, the less money the producers are able to get, so the shows go off the air.

    81. Re:This Blows by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with your post... I was thinking too much in the 'Free to Air' model whereby we don't pay for the shows, the advertising does, and by not watching the adverts, the shows don't get the money... Pay TV's penetration in Australia is nowhere near as deep as in the US.

      I'm all for the subscribe for downloading shows model... I would like a 'subscribe to each channel' type model, where I could subscribe to, say, the Discovery channel, and have unrestricted access to download all of their content during my subscription period.

      I would love that, it could be worldwide, simultaneous viewing of shows around the world... ahhh.

      As it is, I too download via bittorrent, I do so for shows that I started watching on Free to Air here which were then shunted and moved and cancelled etc. (Scrubs, Gilmore Girls, Battelstar Galactica), or for episodes I've missed on TV (Lost).

  9. Re:btefnet by Carlbunn · · Score: 1

    And they only added Btefnet after finding it in a slashdot reader's post

  10. Re:btefnet by HFShadow · · Score: 1

    *looks around sheepishly for not reading it fully before posting*

  11. Can't wait..... by mangus_angus · · Score: 5, Funny

    To see Piratebay.org's response to their letter!!

    1. Re:Can't wait..... by psychopracter · · Score: 1

      Word!

      --
      OS X:*nix for the real world.
    2. Re:Can't wait..... by certel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've seen that response... Hope they've read the international copywrite laws. :/

    3. Re:Can't wait..... by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      The thing is, sweden doesn't have the DMCA for a start. Add to that, it appears it's legal in sweden to post links to copyrighted material, through probably not to host and share it directly. Since the torrent is only a list of instructions on where to find the material, not the material itself, it would appear torrent sites are currently legal in sweden.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    4. Re:Can't wait..... by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      (IANAL, but from what I could tell from the EU Regulations)

      Sweeden is part of the EU, because of that, somebody from say the UK, if their stuff was on Piratebay could successfully sue Piratebay. I'm too lazy to find those requitize sections of the EU regulations again, but if you look, they're there.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  12. MPAA by deafpluckin · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What about non-US sites that are "pirating" US television. Do they have to respect US copyrights?

    It is technically legal to download anime that's copyrighted in Japan but not yet licensed in the USA.

    1. Re:MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > It is technically legal to download anime that's copyrighted in Japan but not yet licensed in the USA.

      No , like TV programs, that's illegal too. Would you warezmonkeys please stop spreading lies to each other? You fools are the entire reason for this "educaton campaign" of suing people.

    2. Re:MPAA by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Informative

      Copyrights are internationally honoured. Unless you're in one of the few countries that hasn't signed the international treaties on copyright then you are bound by US copyright just as much as you are bound by Japanese copyright.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ah, the olde fansub argument. Actually, it's not legal. There's a treaty, Japan and the U.S. signed it... Berne I think is the name. Anyway, maybe you've noticed the Japanese companies are starting to take offense to fansubs? Because it's becoming increasingly obvious that fansubs are hurting sales a lot, and the U.S. anime companies aren't exactly rolling in dough. The U.S. anime companies would do more about fansubs, but they really don't like to piss off the fans, even though the companies are hurting because of it.

      Sure, the fansubs make for free marketing, but when the fansubs of a series stops and the sales of the legit release suddenly go up for the non-fansubbed episodes, it looks really bad for the people saying "Oh, but I always replace fansubs with the real thing". And since a large chunk of anime budgets come from the U.S. licensing, well... I hoped you enjoyed the decent animation quality while it lasted. Time to go back to the slideshows of the 90's or the badly warped amaturish animation of the 80's and before.

      Oh yeah, no more experimental stuff like Kino's Journey, which was largely funded by a U.S. studio that just wanted something different.

      Of course, I'm sure you're one of the ones that really is buying everything you download. Someone is, right?

    4. Re:MPAA by deafpluckin · · Score: 3, Informative
      It is technically legal to download anime that's copyrighted in Japan but not yet licensed in the USA. No , like TV programs, that's illegal too. Would you warezmonkeys please stop spreading lies to each other? You fools are the entire reason for this "educaton campaign" of suing people.

      It's not a lie.

      Read here:

      Fansubs violate copyrights We have to admit it: the distribution of fansubs is technically a violation of copyright under the WTO TRIPS agreement. However the TRIPS agreement does not demand that distribution of copyrighted material is a criminal offence unless it is done on a commercial scale. This means it is up to the copyright holder to bring the offender to court. The copyright of unlicensed material is held by the original creator. In the case of anime this usually means the Japanese distribution company. If something is licenced, the licensee holds the copyright and thus the right to sue any copyright infringers within the area covered by the license. (source: ato's forum post)
      Up until now fansub groups have had little to worry about legal pressure from Japan. However US companies are more likely to sue, therefore it is an additional reason for fansub groups to stop distributing a series once it gets licensed in the US.
      I assume the same is true for TV.
    5. Re:MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Using a legal loophole, to varying states of gray-market, in Canada, it was/is legal to pirate US satelite signals, since they are not licensed for distribution in Canada. You can't steal something that you cannot even legally pay for.

    6. Re:MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, like any other downloading, it IS legal. What *is* illegal is sharing, or acting as the distributor. That is what copyrights protect for the originating source. Learn the distinction.

    7. Re:MPAA by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      At least one Japanese company has sent cease and desist letters regarding distribution of fansubs.

      http://www.animesuki.com/doc.php/legal/mediafactor y.html

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    8. Re:MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't say it's legal, only that it's not criminal under TRIPS. It could still be illegal under other laws (especially local ones).

    9. Re:MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However the TRIPS agreement does not demand that distribution of copyrighted material is a criminal offence unless it is done on a commercial scale.

      The TRIPS agreement isn't the copyright law. It's the agreement between governments under which they promise each other to make copyright laws. If you look at the actual US copyright law, it does make unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material illegal, with a number of exceptions NONE OF WHICH apply to the typical anime fansub case.

      The people who say "unlicensed fansubs are legal" aren't lying, because they believe they are telling the truth. However, they are mistaken.

    10. Re:MPAA by _KiTA_ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, persuant to the Berne convention, it's just as illegal to pirate Japanese cartoons as it is to pirate American ones.

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but Animesuki and 4chan are just as illegal as thepiratebay and suprnova -- it's just that the Japanese publishing houses usually don't CARE, because the people downloading the torrents usually buy DVDs and overpriced toys.

    11. Re:MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal and "won't get sued" are two very different things, please read what you quote next time.

    12. Re:MPAA by trime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, if I walk in the Louvre and help myself to whatever takes my fancy, I'm not stealing the work of great masters, right? I mean, it's not like I can buy any of the works in the museum shop...

      Just because you can't obtain something through legal means doesn't make it free!

    13. Re:MPAA by toad3k · · Score: 1

      And if they pirate episodes of american idol, what are we gonna do, bomb them? Why does slashdot even report this stuff. It is just another pr piece. The only purpose behind these press releases is to get people to read them.

    14. Re:MPAA by MKalus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually thepiratebay is not illegal per se (and definetly not in sweden) as they do not hold any copyrighted files.

      One could argue that they (or whoever runs the trackers) are aiding in the process, but it seems that at least under swedish law this is not illegal (yet?).

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    15. Re:MPAA by sabernet · · Score: 1

      I'm somewhat sick of hearing that too. Many leechers tend to forget that fansubs exist as a courtesy. Studios generally(and I say generally, CLAMP, for example, forbade all of their art from fan sites quite some time ago if I remember correctly) allow fansubs to exist as fans who watch this otherwise inaccessible series generally(again) support the studio by buying branded goods at inflated prices.

    16. Re:MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it weren't for sites like Animesuki, the Naruto series probably wouldn't be airing in the US in fall 2005. By letting fansub groups sub their shows and sites like Animesuki distribute them, they've gotten a free test of how well the show would go over with a US audience, which is a huge chunk of change any way you slice it.

      Naruto, for those unfamiliar with it, has gotten huge in the US over the past two years, and it isn't even 'legally' here yet. The biggest fan communities on the Internet for the show are run in the US or Canada, which says a lot.

      That said, it would be stupid for the Japanese publishers to try to clamp down on sites like Animesuki when they're getting so much for free out of it.

    17. Re:MPAA by darkgray · · Score: 1

      The Japanese companies are not completely uncaring of the online distribution.

      I've been watching Japanese shows without subtitles for a while now, since I'm studying the language, and I've started noticing warning messages about not spreading their show on the internet, etc, etc.

      An example of this is "He is my Master" which started airing a few weeks ago, where a message scrolls by at the start of the episode.

    18. Re:MPAA by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure the 40,000 people downloading Naruto off AONE's servers at any given time are going to be buying the 40-60 DVDs (at $20-30 a pop) that will be coming out over the next 5 YEARS to catch up to where they're at now.

      Get real. The whole "The anime companies love fansubs because they're free advertisment" line is bull and you know it -- Naruto would be just as popular even if people weren't stealing it online. DBZ, the closest released show to Naruto in the US, was plenty popular without 30,000 random American college kids abusing their school T1 pirating it.

      The Japanese publishers politely cast a blind eye to fansubs because most Japanese anime fans buy the DVDs and thousands of dollars in merchandise. If DVD sales suddenly plummeted in Japan due to piracy you can bet dollars to doughnuts that Animesuki would be the first ones against the wall.

    19. Re:MPAA by iamghetto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Copyrights are internationally honoured. Unless you're in one of the few countries that hasn't signed the international treaties on copyright then you are bound by US copyright just as much as you are bound by Japanese copyright.

      It's not quite so cut and dry. What is illegal in one country may not be illegal in another. Take America for example, half the laws in America these days seem to be written for the lobby groups and not the citizens. What is considered a copyright violation may not be considered a violation in another country.

      Last year (or maybe two years ago) it was ruled in Canada that sharing music was perfectly legal. The judge ruled that having a "shared music folder" on your computer where other users could download copies of the music was tantamount to the public library letting a citizens use photocopier to copy pages of a given book. That is the exact analogy he used.

      So while in America sharing music might be illegal and said to violate copyright law, in Canada it is perfectly legal. Even if the MPAA thought we were violating American copyright, they have no course of action to take against us.

      While Canada & America and countless other countries are bound by international copyrights, what violates a copyright in each respective country can be very different.

    20. Re:MPAA by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Riiiight. So when an Australian citizen gets extradited to the US to face criminal charges for copyright infringement when (at the time of his actions) Australia has no similar laws that's what? Oh that's right, it's the Berne Convention, that states that it doesn't matter if you didn't commit a crime or violate civil law in your own country, any country can reach across the world and enforce its own law in another other country.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    21. Re:MPAA by xchino · · Score: 1

      You have a seriously warped view of extradition treaties. If what you suggest was possible, the **AA s wouldn't bother going to norway to try and prosecute DVD Jon, they'd just have him sent over. The only way you can be extradited is if
      a.) You commit a crime while within the borders of the extraditing country
      b.) The action you commit in another country is illegal in the nation of your citizenship.

      The idea that one country can impose it's law on another is absolutely ridiculous. The only way this is possible is with military force. Seriously, read up on extradition laws in your country, your current view is just plain ignorant.

      --
      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
    22. Re:MPAA by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Dude, it happened.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    23. Re:MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia has politically agreed with the fiasco of IP in line with the US. That is why. It gains benefits like special category for work visa-a fair trade so long as Australians see that easier arrangements and associated benefits as greater than the loss from "standardising" on the US perception and laws regarding IP.

    24. Re:MPAA by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      Yes, we know it happened. The point is, extradition applies if you commited the (serious) crime in the country that wants to extradite you.

      Presumably the DoD member is alleged to have comitted whatever crime (article doesn't say) using servers in the US over the 'net while living in australia.

      In addition, he must have done things that bump him up from a civil case (basic copyright infringment) to a criminal case.

      There are a handful of crimes such as genocide and pedophilia where some countries will prosecute you (the UK, for example) even if you committed the crime outside of that countries borders. AFAIK though, that only applies to their citizens, so wouldn't apply in this case.

      Plus, it's somewhat of an unusual case, as Australia is bending over backwards to accomodate the US government at the moment, even at the expense of their citizens. Most countries governments are not so supine.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    25. Re:MPAA by DarkZero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, the olde fansub argument. Actually, it's not legal. There's a treaty, Japan and the U.S. signed it... Berne I think is the name. Anyway, maybe you've noticed the Japanese companies are starting to take offense to fansubs? Because it's becoming increasingly obvious that fansubs are hurting sales a lot, and the U.S. anime companies aren't exactly rolling in dough. The U.S. anime companies would do more about fansubs, but they really don't like to piss off the fans, even though the companies are hurting because of it.

      As far as I know, the only company that has taken offense to fansubs in the last few months is Media Works, who sent a cease and desist to pretty much anyone who ever translated or distributed any of their anime or manga. Otherwise, the Japanese companies still don't care.

    26. Re:MPAA by darkmayo · · Score: 1

      Anime fansubbing has been going on for YEARS. I first say Dragon Ball quite a few years ago on a pirate fansub and even tho the quality was shit it made me a fan of the series, majority of the anime I started to watch was brought to me via pirated fansubs on VHS from a friend of a friend or a little shop in Chinatown that sold them.

      No matter what you want to think the fansub community has established huge fanbases for these series, if even a small portion of those hundreds of thousands of people downloading anime buy the DVDs thats still revenue, Revenue from fans that wouldnt even exist or know about the show if it wasnt for the fansubbers.

      As well this doesnt even include all the rest of the merchandise that appears from these shows being licensed. The companies recognize the power of the fansubbers, imo they give them a rough time from time to time because the law says they should.

      --
      "I am a kernel in the linux army"
    27. Re:MPAA by Frodo+Crockett · · Score: 1

      it's just that the Japanese publishing houses usually don't CARE, because the people downloading the torrents usually buy DVDs and overpriced toys.

      Usually? Not hardly. Only ethical people and people who care about audio/video quality buy discs. In my experience, the majority of "fans" just download it or buy shitty HK knock-offs on ebay.

      --
      "The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
    28. Re:MPAA by loopdreams · · Score: 0

      The laws, which are seemingly being directed by big business in the US, are fucked. If the US can force a South American nation to hand over 2 US soldiers arrested for cocaine smuggling, but demand that an Australian be handed over to them over fucking piracy, just demonstrates how governments are there to prop up companies. It's ok to murder your wife, you might get a few years, but damn if you rob a major company or bank. Kil your wife - your removing one person from the system, less burden. Rob a bank - your stealing money from the dictators. That's how things are turning out to be.

    29. Re:MPAA by JohnOfBorg · · Score: 1
      ... Australia is bending over backwards to accomodate the US government at the moment ...
      I think you mean bending over forwards :)
    30. Re:MPAA by chade01 · · Score: 1

      Ironically, in the United States is one of the countries where your comment *least* applies. Time and time again, the Judicial System has struck down treaties ratified by Congress on matters of Constitutionality. The rationale? Subscribing to a treaty that places legal authority in a foreign body (whether it be the U.N. or another nation) takes legislative power out of the hands of Congress (which is the only Constitutionally authorized legislative body) and into the hands of ... well... someone else. So while Copyrights are internationally honored, they are honored according to local (read: national) Copyright Law.

      So in countries where piracy is "rampant" and sites like Pirate Bay operate without fear... what is happening is that the copyright held by the MPAA is honored (i.e. the MPAA is still recognized as the official copyright holder of the content in question), but under Swedish (or whatever country) law, that copyright is less powerful -- they cannot prevent Pirate Bay from doing what they are doing.

  13. Actually that's the ruling about time shifting. by infonography · · Score: 3, Interesting

    However, if the sites in question are not holding the actual torrents, then they should be able to claim to be news organizations. Being a 'News Organization" is open to massive abuses. Look at Jeff Gannon. Still I wish them luck.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    1. Re:Actually that's the ruling about time shifting. by Aerion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ShunTV and BTEfnet both held their own .torrent files.

      I hope for the sake of their users they "lost" all their logs.

    2. Re:Actually that's the ruling about time shifting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Very few trackers (especially on the scale of btefnet) are even capable of keeping logs. You have to understand that they deal with an obscene amount of requests.

      The average client announces once every ten minutes or so. Considering that btefnet has around one million active peers at any given time, that means that there are about ~1500 announces per second.

      While this is fine for actually returning peers, any sort of disk I/O logging is simply impossible.

      And a site of that size can't keep apache logs for more than 24 hours or so without erasing them due to disk space issues. In short, don't worry about it.

    3. Re:Actually that's the ruling about time shifting. by Aerion · · Score: 1

      ShunTV required registration (to keep track of share ratios, etc.). Like many other of the TorrentBits-based trackers, it kept track of current and last IP address of all its registered users.

      As you say, it would be futile for BTEfnet to try to do any such thing, but it's much easier for a tracker like ShunTV to do it.

    4. Re:Actually that's the ruling about time shifting. by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 1

      Current and Last IP address are worthless if you don't have proof of infringement. E.g. - unless they also stored links to which torrents you downloaded, they have no idea if you downloaded 100 GB of Survivor or 100 GB of public domain content. (And since some torrent sites allow you to donate for extra GB towards your ratio, it's yet another case of needing more proof than just having been in the vicinity of the place during a crime).

      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
  14. Yikes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope they don't find out I'm a fan of the Gilmore Girls

    1. Re:Yikes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am working with a Slashdot administrator as we speak to track you down. Enjoy tonight, for it will be your last.

    2. Re:Yikes! by acramon1 · · Score: 1

      Ray: Man, these Gilmore Girls talk too goddamned much!
      Cornelius: If you don't like it, you can go do something else.
      Ray: Seriously, man! Who writes this shit? Nerdy bitches on speed?

      http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=04162003

    3. Re:Yikes! by SB5 · · Score: 1

      "I hope they don't find out I'm a fan of the Gilmore Girls."

      I am a fan of it too, mostly because of Lauren Graham, who is pretty damn hot in my opinion.

      I just wish I knew what channel and time it was on, I just catch it whenever I flip the channels.

      --
      If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
      it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
    4. Re:Yikes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuckin eh brother.

      Lauren Graham can sue me anytime.

  15. True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, my mom calls me in a panic the other day. My dad forgot to record one of her favorite shows, and it was the series finale, and she really wanted to watch it.

    What are her options? Hope they repeat it in a few months, buy it on DVD in a few years, or maybe locate someone who has a copy? All of these options are pretty iffy.

    I have another choice, though: Break the law downloading it to make my mom happy. Why can't the TV people sell it for download themselves so my mom can be happy legally?

    (Insert the "your mom" jokes below.)

    1. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      OK. I inserted your mom the other day.

    2. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they don't care about your mom.

      They care about making money.

    3. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they can get my mom's money if they're willing to sell her the show.

    4. Re:True story by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and then the people they give it to will strip the ads out and distribute it to everyone else without ads and they'll have to chase these people around even more than they are having to do now. Of course, what would be perfect would be if the TV companies actually put some effort into figuring out what kind of products I like, and advertising those products to me. If they included a link to the website in the film I'd happily click on it and consider buying the product. Of course, that actually takes some sort of creativity.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:True story by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

      I know DRM is evil, but what if they made it uneditable and free, having the file send a signal every time it is copied so that they know what their ad revenue should be (more copies = more ad revenue) . With ads paying for the video program are imbedded in it they can let us distribute it for free as each copy we make directly makes them more money and costs them nothing.

      --
      Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
    6. Re:True story by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      And you know the answer to that as much as I do. DRM on films *just doesn't work*.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who the fuck modded this offtopic...

    8. Re:True story by EvilCabbage · · Score: 1

      His mother?

      No, some days I really can't help myself.

    9. Re:True story by BrianH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep, I agree. I've downloaded three TV shows from BitTorrent in the past year. Two of them were series that I record on my DVR regularly but had been timeshifted due to sporting events. The other was a show that I'd accidentally deleted before I could watch it. In all three cases, I deleted the shows after watching them.

      What the MPAA doesn't get is that there is a fundamental difference between MP3's and DVD quality AVI's. With the exception of a few hardcore swappers, most of us simply don't have the disk space to store dozens or hundreds of movies. Since even broadband users often have to wait many hours for a show to download, the idea that downloaded movies are going to replace the DVD in the same way that MP3's are replacing CD's is simply unfounded. Couple that with the fact that few people really want to watch TV on their computer and even fewer have any kind of connection between their PC's and home entertainment systems, and any reasonable person would conclude that movie swapping will never become mainstream. They are spending FAR more money on these legal actions than they'll ever lose to swappers.

      If the MPAA really wants to improve their revenue streams, they should start offering these themselves. I'd have gladly paid a buck to watch those shows.

      --

      There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
    10. Re:True story by moe613 · · Score: 5, Funny

      ill be 18 in 4 months.

      then ill be able to make your mom happy legally ;)

    11. Re:True story by Monkelectric · · Score: 2
      I know its "technically" illegal to download tv shows. But I have a fairly expensive cable subscription... In my mind im already paying 80$ a month for TV (yeah I know ... adelphia). So whats the difference if I download it and watch it, or if I tape it or watch it? The difference is, tapes SUCK. I dont know how they do it, but the stuff on these sites is *far* superior quality to vhs, *EVERYTHING* looks like shit on a 62" HDTV.

      I've also realized something, Im 26, and advertising is simply not aimed at me anymore. I'm a relatively savy consumer and I can count the number of things I've bought from a TV commercial in the last 5 years on one hand (mostly new kinds of pizzas from pizza hut:).

      I have noticed, that I buy things and *THEN* see them in commericals. They're advertising a game called psychonauts ... pre-ordered it months ago. Kingdom Hearts, Castlevania? Bought them before I ever saw the commercials. What im trying to say is not that im some kind of trendsetter, just that I seem to find out about stuff I want other ways than television.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    12. Re:True story by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Get the Adelphia DVR, it's only $9/mo and comes with a 160 gig hard drive. I have Adelphia silver pack with 2 dvrs and one digital cable box and their 6000/512 internet package, it's only $140/mo. Adelphia's prices are a little high, yeah. The quality makes up for it, in my opinion. I really like the hundred or so music only channels.

      Oh, and the sites are usually HDTV rips. I know when I download CSI and throw it through svideo to our 42" hdtv it's much nicer than the non-hdtv CBS we get.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    13. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or you can just burn all of the downloaded files onto DVDs or CDs.

      As for playing them in your entertainment system you can pickup a Phillips DVP642 DVD player. It retails for $79.99 but you can frequently find it for $65-$70. Amazon if out of stock but here.

    14. Re:True story by Saeger · · Score: 1
      I'm paying TimeWarner $120/mo for cable+internet, and I too view "illegal downloads" as part of the package.

      I simply have Azureus setup to monitor the torrent RSS feed @ btefnet (which, oddly enough, is down right now for the first time in a long time), and automatically download a few shows that match my filters: The Daily Show, Enterprise, Penn&Teller's Bullshit!, Stargate, etc.

      Usually the shows were encoded from an HDTV source, so it looks much better on my monitor than on my old tivo-less 27" SDTV.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    15. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > few people really want to watch TV on their >computer ...whatever you say.

      I feel the same way about cam versions of movies but obviously people watch it.

      You have got to stop using your own personal views as a barometer for the rest of the world.

      >any reasonable person

      In other words, people who think just like you do, right?

    16. Re:True story by jtcm · · Score: 0, Troll
      (Insert the "your mom" jokes below.)

      Your momma's so fat, a DS3 line can't top her band-width.

      /me ducks

      --
      @ASP.NET's parent-teacher meeting: "Little Johnny.NET is very bright, but he doesn't play well with others."
    17. Re:True story by swayze · · Score: 0
      It's down for a reason.. specifically in that it's one of the sites that was targeted by this crackdown. Couldn't have happened to a worse bunch of people. Hi ig88b.


      -lame

    18. Re:True story by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With the exception of a few hardcore swappers, most of us simply don't have the disk space to store dozens or hundreds of movies.

      Who needs to store it? Watch it, delete it, good to go.

      That said, I have 4 200GB drives that I've bought over the course of a year, which is enough to hold several seasons of a variety of TV shows, along with every decent (in my opinion) movie released in the same amount of time in xvid, and still not be hurting for space. I don't have a desire to re-watch most things, so I would just start deleting things if it came to that, but if I wanted to keep it I'd just burn it to DVD.

      Hypothetically, of course.

    19. Re:True story by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
      Get the Adelphia DVR, it's only $9/mo

      I wish I could. They *ADVERTISE* it in my area but when you call them they say its not avaliable :) Same with their HDTV package. Good advice thou!

      Truth be told, im thinking of ditching the TV altogether. I've noticed all my successfull friends dont have TVs...

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    20. Re:True story by Saeger · · Score: 1

      So you're one of the 2000 toadies in the #bt IRC channel eh?

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    21. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what we call a false dilemma. Tell yo' mama to go outside and breath some fresh air.

      Kill your TV!

    22. Re:True story by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't stripping ads out of a compressed file lower quality. If so, why would the people who encode the existing distributed files continue to do so with their current methods.

    23. Re:True story by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Good idea.. I bet if you mention that to Adelphia, I'm sure you can get them to either lower your monthly bill or speed up the DVR to your area. Also, if they have plain digital cable in your area, it's the local cable office that's slacking. It took almost a year between when we got Digital Cable and when they finally rolled out their DVR and internet services. Just complain a lot. Get anybody you know with Adelphia to complain.

      When I was 16, I got our local Adelphia office to offer the Food network with a letter campaign.

      They are going through a strange phase right now, what with the fraud and all, but they're nicer and more helpful than ever.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    24. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't stripping ads out of a compressed file lower quality.

      I assume you meant to put a question mark on the end of that. The answer is "no". Cut between keyframes, no quality loss. Synching up the audio may be a tiny bit trickier, but not much.

    25. Re:True story by qyiet · · Score: 0

      Take a plane ticket to new zealand, then you can leagaly make their mum happy right now

    26. Re:True story by serutan · · Score: 1

      You make the mistake of thinking that your mom's devotion to the show is important. It's not. What's important to the TV industry is that the next new batch of filler holds her attention enough to get her to watch more commercials. Things that we naturally think of as part of our culture aren't really "ours" in any way.

      When Congress passed the Bono Act in 1998, the copyright term on recorded entertainment became 95 years, and everything recorded before 1972 was extended to the year 2067. That includes Spanky and Our Gang, even the wax cylinders made by Edison in the 1890s. It'll all be copyrighted until long after you're dead. Modern American Culture is all about rights owners deciding what is worth offering your mom the chance to pay per view, at a time, place and format of their choosing.

    27. Re:True story by loraksus · · Score: 1

      Target B&M usually has them in stock for $65.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    28. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the same thing. I caught half of an episode of "Good Eats" that interviewed a guy my dad used to work with. I thought Food Network would rebroadcast it later that night. They didn't. It was from a few years back, so I thought it might be available on DVD. It wasn't. So I ended up having to pay a guy for a pirate copy.

      Until networks give us a legal way to watch on demand, this is what they'll have to put up with.

    29. Re:True story by swayze · · Score: 0

      I'm too cool to even be let in. Who would have thought a channel that big and a site that busy would attract mpaa attention.

    30. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      who the fuck modded this offtopic...

      I you don't think it was off topic then you just don't get it. The topic is the MPAA targeting torrent sites, not what you'd do to some guy's mother.

      But if you feel you have more to say on the subject you can go ahead a submit a story about it. If it gets accepted then you can post away about his mother without being off topic.

    31. Re:True story by Massif · · Score: 1

      Digitally downloaded, just the way your mother likes it, eh Trebeck?

    32. Re:True story by houghi · · Score: 1



      Your point would be valid if the world would see the show all at the same time.

      I have seen the show Joey, witch is not yet broadcasted where I live. So soewhere just after the summer, perhaps they will start broadcasting. Do you think I will be watching that or something else?

      You bet I watch something else. Now asume everybody does that. how much do you think they are going to sell this show to the rest of the world?

      Als what happens if your mom does call you the next week for another show, because you gave here a show without ads and she liked that better? Are you then going to say: Hey, that is not allowed, or are you going to download them in advance, because then she will let you live for free in the basement?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    33. Re:True story by brontus3927 · · Score: 1

      It was JAG, wasn't it? My mom had me disconnect the phone before it came on and locked her bedroom door so she wouldn't be interrupted

    34. Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long ago was it that most of us didn't have the disk space to store dozens or hundreds of audio files? They probably just want to get ahead of the game...

  16. Yeah right. by Poietes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They should be thanking us for taking their garbage out. How many quality TV shows are there? How many really? One in every hundred?

    Most TV Shows these days are advertisements anyway. They don't want us to distribute ads?

    1. Re:Yeah right. by PocketPick · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with you on the subject of TV programming being abismal, but not on the other point. Regardless of the quality, television show content is thier copyrighted work. And like other mediums, such as novels, they have the right to see that thier works are proteced. You as an individual are entitled to fair-use and copies for personell use. But fair-use does not encompass all forms of distribution.

      It would seem that over the years, there has become a false sense of entitlement when it comes to sharing. Users once cited the unfair pricing of music as thier reason for using P2P apps and downloading MP3s. And to that, I would agree. But as high-speed connections have become more widely available, the exact reasoning for why individuals do such things has become watered down. Cost, availability, hatred for a company, desire for a trial-spin, the 'I wouldn't buy it anyway' excuse. There's a million and one reasons that any user can pull out of a bag. We seem to download more and more, but can't even make up our mind why we do. But most know that impulse and cost (or lack there of) is the real reason. Shine it all you want, it still comes down to that. And that reason alone does not justify circumvention of all existing copyright laws.

      No doubt some of you will disagree with me (perhaps using one of the above mentioned reasons), but I stick by my point. I may not agree with the tactics to which the MPAA engages in when it comes to enforcing it's copyright, but you don't use one wrong as reason for another.

    2. Re:Yeah right. by MrPerfekt · · Score: 1

      All the torrents I've run into on most major torrent sites have the ads removed into a pretty seemless viewing experience. I'm sure they're not too keen on that.

      --
      I just wasted your mod points! HA!
    3. Re:Yeah right. by GrassMunk · · Score: 1

      It works like this: Most of us dont give a fuck. We done care if its right or wrong, we dont care, period. Thats all there is to it. We hind behind excuses, but at the end of the day we are all greedy bastards trying to save a buck for that new house, that new car etc. So at the end of the day when we come home from a job that pays too little and we want to watch an episode of scrubs from three weeks ago then we're going to. Just like how people speed, how people cheat and how people lie. Thats who we are. Either the networks can embrace it or they will lose. Cause nothing is better then alienating your demographic.

  17. idiots by aendeuryu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I downloaded the latest Apprentice because I missed it. I'm in Korea with no VCR and I was out of town that night. How the hell else am I going to watch their show? They DO want people to watch their shows, right?

    Just another example of these people dropping the ball and trying to fight technology. Hell, if they were smart, they'd offer their own shows with commercials for download. If they came up with a system that was as fast and easy as bt which had commercials, and maybe even more reliable, I'd probably get that version and watch the damn commercials anyway, or at least, pay as much attention to the commercials as I would if it was a regular broadcast.

    But instead, these guys are like creationists, dragging us kicking and screaming back into technologically backwards times when we've already gotten a taste of enlightenment. Good luck with that. Idiots.

    1. Re:idiots by EvilCabbage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "They DO want people to watch their shows, right?"

      No, they want people to watch the adverts that come with the show, buy the associated lunchboxes, CD singles, T-shirts and beer holding hats.

      TV shows are really becoming vehicles for product launches. Just take a look at MTV and the Xbox unveiling.
      Hell, maybe it's always been that way and I'm only now old enough to appreciate it. When I think back to some of the cartoons I would watch as a small child, they were obviously just 30 minute advertisments for a toy line, same thing we're seeing these days with Pokemon and whatever card collecting cartoon series is big this week.

    2. Re:idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They DO want people to watch their shows, right?

      No... no they don't. They want you to watch the commercials. The TV show is just a mechanism to deliver these commercials to you.

    3. Re:idiots by QuantumG · · Score: 1
      They DO want people to watch their shows, right?

      Actually, no, they want people to watch the Ads.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:idiots by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      They only want you to watch their show if you pay for it in some way.

      * You could pay for cable subscriptions.

      * You could watch commercials that come with the show.

      * You can buy it on DVD.

      Why should they care one whit if you watch their show and they get no revenues for your viewing it?

      Understand- I use a lot of TV torrents as well but I'm realistic about the fact that they don't earn money off me.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    5. Re:idiots by Aerion · · Score: 1

      I'm only going to see their ads if I watch it live.

      I watch my favorite shows live whenever I can because I don't want to wait 3-4 hours to download it. But if I miss the show, I want to be able to download it and watch what I missed. If I can't do that, I lose interest, especially with shows like 24, where continuity is extremely important.

    6. Re:idiots by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1
      They DO want people to watch their shows, right?

      No... (and it's obvious you know this already) they want people to watch the advertisements.

      The problem is that the way all of the deals are structured within the entertainment industry (exclusive rights, release schedules), it is very hard to introduce new methods of timely legal content delivery.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    7. Re:idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "They DO want people to watch their shows, right?"

      Yes, of course -- WITH the commercials that pay for them. If people timeshift (which is legal), it is still being effectively paid for by the commercials that exist within the copy, even if people do not necessarily pay attention to the ads as much. If people edit those out and distribute the result, however, it is hard to see how the owners/broadcasters of the show would find that acceptable.

      As you say, the obvious thing for them to do would be to put the shows up somewhere with commercials, after broadcast. They should be looking upon this as an opportunity for a wider audience, not stamping it out. Hell, if they came out and said something like "It's okay, as long as you leave the commercials in", they wouldn't even have to spend an additional cent of their own money. There would be complications (e.g., which broadcaster's copy eventually gets the wider distribution?), but for the advertisers that are paying the bills, I can't see how it would be a bad thing. It would be like a bonus. If broadcasters were *really* smart, they might even take the initiative and say, "This show approved for web distribution WITH commercials", and sell that as a value-added aspect of their advertising. The owners of the content *might* be willing to allow that with an additional fee, and it would be up to the broadcaster and advertisers to determine if it would actually be worth the extra hassle. For a popular show that targets an audience likely to be very, uh, "web-enabled" (read: geeks), it might be. "This web broadcast sponsored by Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems. Yoyodyne -- making the future work for you today!"

      Maybe there is no genuine economic potential here, but it doesn't sound like the MPAA is taking a creative approach to the "problem". They apparently wish to stamp out the technology wholesale. Dumb. It didn't work when reel-to-reel film movies gained popularity over live shows. Why should the new technology be any different?

    8. Re:idiots by hvatum · · Score: 0

      Original Poster wrote, "They DO want people to watch their shows, right?" No, they don't. They want you to watch their adds.

      --
      Netbooks, they come with Linux or a $3 copy of Windows. Either way, Microsoft loses.
    9. Re:idiots by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      The purpose of shows like 24 is to ensure that you are there and watching the show (complete with ads) at the alloted time. If you could just download an episode that you missed you wouldn't bother ensuring that you were home and in front of the tv at the alloted time and the ad slots would no longer be as premium. That's why the superbowl is so damn valuable to advertisers too. If you miss it and think you'll just watch it later you'll have to walk around holding your ears until you do because everyone talks about the score for 3 days starting immediately after the event.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    10. Re:idiots by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1
      They DO want people to watch their shows, right?

      No, they want you to watch their advertisements. The shows is there to give you a reason to watch the channel with the hope you're too lazy to flip to another channel when a commercial comes on. By downloading commercial-free content from the Internet, you're screwing the studios out of their only stream of revenue. The only way to make up for that will be increasing in-show product placements and more of those god damn popover commercials that take up half the screen. They do that on Spike TV and it's annoying as hell.

    11. Re:idiots by E8086 · · Score: 1
      They DO want people to watch their shows, right?
      Nope, they just want people to watch the commercials and buy all the advertised products like a bunch of impulsive cash cows then spend even more when they buy it on DVD one season at a time over the next couple years before they re-release it on HD-DVD and then whatever media is created next.
      This is no longer and issue of fair use. (ok, so it never really was) It's an issue of making more money from future DVD sales which may or may not ever exist.

      Here's the TV/MPAA's business plan in a way we can all understand:
      1) Produce semi-decent tv series
      (shown ONCE a week and never re-run)
      2) Wait a couple years and release on DVD
      3) PROFIT!!!

      It's a nice plan, but does NOT comply with the demands of the comsumers who wanted to watch the show last night but were not home and don't want to spend their hard earned cash on a piece of dated technology(VCR) and want to wait until everyone decides on the DRM(or lack of) before buying a (HD-)DVR/HD=TV card, or want to wait until a reasonably priced HD-TV service is available in their area.

      --
      F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
    12. Re:idiots by drdink · · Score: 1

      Forget MTV. Even sitcoms do it now. NPR's Morning Edition had a good story about advertising in TV and for movies yesterday morning. I knew about a lot of what went on, but it just got pretty disturbing at the end. Scientists changing dates on their discoveries to coincide with Jurassic Park releases? What has the world come to?

      --
      Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
    13. Re:idiots by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      ... specially with shows like 24, where continuity is extremely important.

      If you watched this last week's episode, you know that product placement is quite important in 24 too.

      I mean, did you see that full-screen ad for Cisco? Not to mention the PRODUCT NAME that was blurted out.

    14. Re:idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they want you to watch their advertisements. The shows is there to give you a reason to watch the channel with the hope you're too lazy to flip to another channel when a commercial comes on. By downloading commercial-free content from the Internet, you're screwing the studios out of their only stream of revenue. The only way to make up for that will be increasing in-show product placements and more of those god damn popover commercials that take up half the screen. They do that on Spike TV and it's annoying as hell.

      Cool so if I make TV torrents and leave the ad's there it will be sweet!

    15. Re:idiots by topham · · Score: 1


      I was too busy trying to ignore the horrific dialog at that point in the show.

      Between the mushy dialog (between certain characters), the horrible networking terminology, and the idea that you can determine the location a picture was taken when it looks like any other farm/backyard within a few thousand miles of some particular location...

      let's just say I was a bit disappointed with this episode, more than others.

      Never mind that if Department of Homeland security is actually using the Internet to routine real-time satellite data (disregarding the impossible live footage-anytime crap they show on 24) you have bigger problems to worry about...

    16. Re:idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know I pay for cable but I still have to watch commercials when I watch something live. Thankfully I watch very little TV anymore.

    17. Re:idiots by compwiz312 · · Score: 1
      "They DO want people to watch their shows, right?"

      They could care less if you watch their show, they care about the commercials.

      The bittorrents don't contain the commercails and therefore they do not help out the networks (or producers) bottom line whatsoever.

      Why the TV companies don't create an online system to view shows (for a fee of course), I do not know; but why they don't like bittorrents, I can understand.

    18. Re:idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wake up charley who do you think created you? when "666" comes around does that mean it`s just another evolutionary process of man? if so, how come it was foretold in the Bible?

    19. Re:idiots by GrassMunk · · Score: 1

      Oh really? Ever watch 24? Apprentice? Survivor? These shows are essentially hour long product placements. And one other thing, when did 1 hour shows go from being 45-50 minutes long to 38-40 minutes? Im almost inclined to say what a later post says: Fuck it, im out. Good luck getting the advertisements to me.

    20. Re:idiots by KillShill · · Score: 1

      tv shows are BECOMING?

      they were the instant some evil sob realized that, probably the very early part of this century, soon after they realized what a wonderful propoganda machine it was.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    21. Re:idiots by Aerion · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I kind of felt the same way. Between butchering of technology, and butchering of the Constitution, ... well, that's typical FOX style, isn't it?

      This must be why Dave Barry calls 24 his favorite show "only when I'm not watching it."

  18. Here we go again by cecil36 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This stuff happens all the time. I'm sure that people are still using VHS tapes to record their favorite shows and loaning the tape out to their friends. Heck, if I knew that I was going to miss **insert random TV show here** on a given night and my wife wanted to record something that aired on the same night at the same time on a different channel, heck, I'd find a friend of mine who would either record onto tape or DVR the show and give me the copy on tape or DVD. When will the **AA farknuts learn?

    1. Re:Here we go again by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wow, that argument follows as much as the conversation between Bart and his one time employer, Fat Tony.

      "Is it wrong to steal bread if your family is starving?"
      "No, I don't guess so."

      "And if you have a large family, is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread?"
      "No"

      "And say your family don't like bread. Say they like cigarettes. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of cigarettes?"
      "Hell no!"


      Fair use is the worst thing that ever happened with copyright law. If people didn't have a way to weasle out from under the jackboots of copyright we'd have had the revolution a long time ago.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Here we go again by geneXX · · Score: 1

      I hope you cleared the use of that quote with the Fox/Simpsons lawyers before posting it here.

    3. Re:Here we go again by Zakabog · · Score: 0

      Except it's illegal to steal bread. It's not illegal to video tape a TV show or record a song from a radio. It is also not illegal to give that recording to your friend. That is fair use.

    4. Re:Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The VHS still has commercials... Even if you are fast forward you see the commercial... You see something you like, maybe you stop and watch the commercial. You watch, you like, you buy.

      Like it or not current TV is based either on commercial or subscription (HBO). So it's not hard to understand the mind set if they don't watch our commercials or subscribe we lose.

      Will we have on demand TV one day? I believe so. The problem is the TV execs. are too stupid to see the two models can exist side by side just fine, and if done right make the more money. Example.

      1st Broadcast (same as today with commercials)... A few hours later offer two types of streams, a cheap re-broadcast with commercials and a premium one without commercials.

      This also allows people who find a show late in the season to watch all the previous episodes (thus making you more money).

      When it comes time to sell the DVD, you can push the OWN the DVD model, vs. streaming model, to sell even MORE.

    5. Re:Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subtle difference between giving to your friend and giving to 10,000 of you closest friends. Suddenly you hit the same distribution population that is a few hundred times when compared to you local blockbuster. There is a considerable difference.

      These sites are usually generating revenue from copyrighted material that isn't theirs.

    6. Re:Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >> Subtle difference between giving to your friend and giving to 10,000 of you closest friends.
      >>
      Actually, no there isn't.

      The problem isn't that you are letting a few friends borrow it, it is that now 10,000 new copies exist.

    7. Re:Here we go again by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jesus. I was giving an example of an argument that doesn't make sense. I wasn't suggesting that there was any relevance between the two conversations. Seriously, sometimes posting on slashdot is like talking to a 15 year old (or a PE teacher).

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    8. Re:Here we go again by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      People will still record it when it first airs, strip the ads out and put it on the net before the "premium" one becomes available. It'll be like a game, who can get the release up the fastest.. oh wait, that's the game now.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    9. Re:Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I read "follows as much conversation" as "follows as much logic". And then reading how fair use is the worst thing that happened to copyright law I assumed you meant you're against fair use and were comparing Fat Tony's argument with the argument of most file sharers.

    10. Re:Here we go again by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I was giving an example of an argument that doesn't make sense.

      It's called a non sequitur..

      If elephants are large, then meatballs must be happy.

    11. Re:Here we go again by QuantumG · · Score: 0

      It's called that by people who are pretenious, yes.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    12. Re:Here we go again by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Right. Pretentious people who read cartoons.

    13. Re:Here we go again by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Pretentious people who can spell 'pretentious'.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    14. Re:Here we go again by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      It's too bad we'll never know because it hasn't happened.

      Myself, I don't think I'd have a problem with viewing ads in downloaded content.

      Of course, now that doesn't matter, because these guys can go fuck themselves, but...

      --
      It's been a long time.
    15. Re:Here we go again by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      So tell me, which one are you? The 15 year old or the PE teacher?

    16. Re:Here we go again by mr_snarf · · Score: 1

      Hes the meatball

      --
      printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
    17. Re:Here we go again by torokun · · Score: 1


      That tin foil hat looks nice on you. ;)

    18. Re:Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like really big cocks in my ass too

    19. Re:Here we go again by genner · · Score: 1

      Wow, meatballs really are happy.

  19. Re:btefnet by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sadly, btefnet is on the list. Where will I get The Daily Show and Dr. Who if they go down?

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
  20. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    btefnet sure is on the list.
    if the show has already aired then i can't understand what the issue is. As far as i understan, the MPAA can only take action on sites within the US ... where the shows have already aired and are already in the public domain. It's rather interesting that they go after the bittorrent trackers and users that record shows to distribute on these trackers, and not the people who record onto VHS etc. and lend it out to their friends.
    Does this mean that one form of recording is more acceptable than the other and does it mean that if i record to another medium and then transfer to a digital format that its O.K.

  21. Fair Use by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently it is OK to record TV as long as your aren't sharing it.

    uhmmm... Yeah. That is what the whole debate over fair use, and backup copies is about.

    It's okay for me to use it for my own personal pleasure, but it isn't alright to rebroadcast it to the world.

    And we wonder why every mass-market electronic media outlet is DRM'ed to the gills.

    1. Re:Fair Use by oirtemed · · Score: 1

      And we wonder why every mass-market electronic media outlet is DRM'ed to the gills. Because they are greedy and copyright, DMCA does not serve the interest of the people?

    2. Re:Fair Use by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 1

      And we wonder why every mass-market electronic media outlet is DRM'ed to the gills. Because they are greedy That is not in dispute, but our greed and/or "robin hood" atempts does not help the matter any.

    3. Re:Fair Use by vonwilkenstein · · Score: 1
      And we wonder why every mass-market electronic media outlet is DRM'ed to the gills.

      Because greedy corporations [if allowed] that would grind your children up and feed them to their livestock if it meant they could post an increase of $0.01 EPS. Another example of the corps insisting that you pay for everything, every time you use it. Makes perfect sense, since everytime they release it (syndication, DVD, etc.) they continue to make money with little production costs. You already see it with movies (remake, remake, remake) and TV (reality,reality,reality).They have managed to reduce their use of writers, who is next?

    4. Re:Fair Use by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because greedy corporations...

      Here's a question for you.

      Your favorite new media (song, movie, etc...) is available for purchase. It is released in a completely non-DRM'ed format. Do you pay for it, or do you search for somebody else who has already paid for it and is sharing it?

      The media corporations are not the only greedy SOBs.

    5. Re:Fair Use by KillShill · · Score: 1

      if copyright laws were limited, it'd already be public domain.

      when copyright starts to be sensible, then you may have some ground to stand on.

      but seeing as how copyright is inherently unsensible, it'll never happen.

      preventing others from taking from the same source "authors" take, is absurd as hell.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    6. Re:Fair Use by vonwilkenstein · · Score: 1
      First, I do not apprieciate the implication that I am a greedy SOB like the Media Corporations. What proof do you have that I am a greedy media pirate?.

      To stay on topic, I do pay for it. I PAY my ever increasing CATV bill every month. I Pay for access to the network programming. I even pay all of the regulatory fees that the CATV company charges to offset their regulatory/franchise costs.

      My issue is that fact that the media corps want control over all content and want to exercise that control how THEY see fit. What market share does this "piracy" represent anyway? After all, 99% of homes in America have at least one TV, and many pay for CATV, DBS, etc.

      On another note how could the MPAA even quantize the lost revenue from this?

  22. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome to slashdot!

    nobody here ever reads teh articles, but 1f u can port hot grtis down natale portmans pants ....in japan! then, yer welucu3 heRE!

  23. Re:btefnet by artifex2004 · · Score: 1
    I posted the list first but *I'M* the one who get's modded "redundant". Gotta freaking love moronic /. moderators...


    not quite :)
    (and the fact that I'm writing this means I didn't do the modding, or it'd be undone, of course)
  24. Damn! by EvilCabbage · · Score: 2, Funny

    And just before the series finale of "Lost" too ;) We're not even halfway through the first season screening down under, and I have a crack-like addiction to the series. It's shameful, I know, but some primal part of me really digs the idea of being stuck on an island with Maggie Grace

    1. Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well...its your fault. If you hadn't downloaded the episodes to begin with, you wouldn't feel stuck behind with only the first half of the season being aired...if you had sustained from downloading, you would be watching new episodes each week on aussie tv intently, as people in the US were doing months ago....you caused your own problem.

    2. Re:Damn! by EvilCabbage · · Score: 4, Funny

      Look, I'll stop complaining about the delay in TV programming if you guys just promise to keep Dame Edna. We don't want "her" back.

    3. Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "sustained"?

      Farewell, literacy! You were a good friend, for a little while...

    4. Re:Damn! by dagnabit · · Score: 1

      ** SPOILER **

      According to a totally reliable intarweb chatboard I heard about at work, the island is Purgatory, they're all already dead, and the mystery hatch leads to heaven.

      Now you don't have to worry about missing it anymore. :)

    5. Re:Damn! by loraksus · · Score: 1

      Dear Slashdot,
      Would it be illegal for me to tell the parent that piratebay has a copy?
      Discuss ;)

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    6. Re:Damn! by eamonman · · Score: 1

      Huh, who's tha... /me searches google

      Wahhhhhgghhhaaaaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeuuugghhhhhh!

      I mean, ah, ok. Keep up with the complaints!

      --
      0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC
  25. ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No you were not the first to post the list, you were off by a minute if you want to get technical.

    1. Re:ummm by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      If you want to get "actual" when I hit the submit button there was a sum total of TWO parent posts with no children.

      I responded directly to a parent post with no children. The guy who got the :28 post must have hit submit less then 1 second before me.

      That DOESN'T make me redundant, it just makes his submit button a mite quicker.

      This is one of the things that really irritates me about slashdot...the stupid moderation.

    2. Re:ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How come the parent postman has no children? YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD.
      We are allowed to copulate and generate life as much as you do.

    3. Re:ummm by GutBomb · · Score: 1

      why care how your post was moderated? you need the ego boost of someone saying "good boy" every time something spews from your word hole?

    4. Re:ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that he necessarily needs approval. If this happens to him, enough, his posts will be hidden by default for most people in the future, making him effectively unable to "spew from his word hole" at all.

  26. waaaaaaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    your cutting into our way-f'n-overpriced dvd boxset profits

  27. download anime meaning Fansubs by infonography · · Score: 1
    The fansub community have tacid approval from the anime producers because of self imposed policies.

    1. They make it clear that it's not an official version.

    2. They ask that the file be deleted once a US/English version is available

    3. And most important they generate interest in the titles that the producers can point to and say 'hey look at how popular that anime is on the fansub nets, we should be able to make a killing in the regular market!'

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  28. Rampant Piracy == Business Opportunity by Mazem · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clearly there is rampant downloading of TV shows. Although the big companies are having a hissy fit about it, to me it is a sign that there is a huge untapped market, much in the same way as the napster phenomenon was indicative of a market for legal downloading mp3's (which iTunes took advantage of). All they have to do is this:

    1: Offer fast TV downloads for free, or offer legal torrents.

    2: Include the advertisements in the shows, and track how many people download them.

    3: Profit!!!

    1. Re:Rampant Piracy == Business Opportunity by mblase · · Score: 1

      Include the advertisements in the shows, and track how many people download them.

      Ads can be fast-forwarded (well, most of the time) or shrunk to invisibility. A better idea, at least IMO, is to take the approach HomestarRunner and RedVsBlue use: offer the episodes for free, keep a complete archive on the site, and use the site traffic to sell merchandise at a profitable mark-up.

    2. Re:Rampant Piracy == Business Opportunity by Teja · · Score: 1

      Yea, the only way they can't is only if you make them stream only. But I'm sure even then, someone will try to find a way to rip them. At the same time, while the RedVsBlue idea is interesting, I highly doubt that that will work. I ultimately hope that some one will consider offering TV shows available for download online (legally of course).

      --
      - Teja
    3. Re:Rampant Piracy == Business Opportunity by Strolls · · Score: 1
      1: Offer fast TV downloads for free, or offer legal torrents. 2: Include the advertisements in the shows, and track how many people download them. 3: Profit!!!
      I wondered what Google were going to come up with next.
    4. Re:Rampant Piracy == Business Opportunity by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Please, PLEASE stop using the word "rampant". And for that matter, let's stop using the word "piracy". At least as it applies to copyright infringment. I cannot believe that out of dictionaries full of English words we can't find a couple of other words to use. Besides, if we let the MPAA/RIAA define our lexicon we're halfway to losing the battle for copyright already.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Rampant Piracy == Business Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck the advertisements. Offer me fast TV downloads at a buck an episode and I'll gladly fork over the dough.

      Take Arrested Development f'rinstance. Typical of Fox, it's an on-again/off-again series. No one really knows if they're gonna be around from one season to the next.

      With six million viewers, a buck a download would make it so freakin' profitable that the producers could give Fox the big fuck-you and go independent.

      Television is dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

    6. Re:Rampant Piracy == Business Opportunity by SB5 · · Score: 1

      The other problem is the companies would probably overcharge on the popular stuff instead of delivering savings to the consumer.

      Although I also see that it could take away the monopolies from the networks.

      --
      If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
      it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
    7. Re:Rampant Piracy == Business Opportunity by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      This idea is so good that +5 insightful isn't enough.

      Let's say it all together now, "The TV Networks don't get it."

      For years, the reason that no one offered video-on-demand was that the bandwidth costs would eat anyone alive. This is still essentially the case, if you offer a direct download. However, bittorrent basically flatten the cost of distribution to almost nothing. The cost of distributing a torrent file to a million people is not that different from the cost of building and running an antenna that can broadcast to a million people.

      If tomorrow, the networks would start distributing torrents with ads left in, then the current torrent sites would all but disappear overnight. Given the choice between downloading a show from a network with known bandwidth and compression quality, versus the hassle of finding a good torrent site with ads stripped, hopefully decent quality, and maybe enough peers to seed the file, the average consumer is just going to go with the known factor instead of searching for something else. Hell, with bittorrent, bandwidth costs are so low that the networks could probably make a profit on ad-stripped shows even if they only charged a dollar or so for them. Sprinkle on a dash of DRM to make it semi-difficult to strip the ads, and viola, they've got a way to stay competitive in the 21st century.

      It's a shame they feel more like suing their customers than solving the problem...

    8. Re:Rampant Piracy == Business Opportunity by KillShill · · Score: 1

      torrents suck, at least most of the ones i've ever used.

      usually the number of people needed to reach a reasonable dl speed is never approached.

      and yes the ports on my firewall are open for torrents.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    9. Re:Rampant Piracy == Business Opportunity by AGTiny · · Score: 1

      I bet they'd do it in a second, if it weren't for the problem of affiliates and local ads. I hate the local news guys and crappy local programming as much as the next guy, but without a way to localize the content, the networks could never distribute a "national" torrent with national ads.

    10. Re:Rampant Piracy == Business Opportunity by adamUndefined · · Score: 1

      Those appear to be some fairly trivial technical problems. They could definitely be overcome. Even the localized ads could be worked in. You could release the majority of the video file over torrent. Using selective encryption on the video file the networks could provide a suitable control mechanism over the file. They could probably get by with only encrypting 15% or less of the file if they wanted to include ads in that content as well. To provide only encryption 2-10% is all that is needed for MPEG. They could provide this encrypted portion for download from their own servers.

    11. Re:Rampant Piracy == Business Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even a dollar a show is too much. Try more like a quarter or maybe fifty cents. The show was broadcast to people for free and the bandwidth overhead for the content provider is minimal with bittorrent. People will find free sites if the show cost too much from "legal" sources.

      Bittorrent to me is just another form of timeshifting. If I miss a show, I just download it later. The only gripe the network would have with the way I use it is that I get a commercial-free version of the show. I'd download them even if they did have commercials, but of course skip over the commercials just like if I'd recorded them using a VCR.

  29. ShunTV DEAD - One Down, 5 to Go by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 1

    ShunTV has been taken down, the home page now links to a PDF from the MPAA.

    Forgive my language, but those MPAA motherfuckers!

    --
    "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
  30. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I think it's actually quite funny. The parent comes in and "corrects" some grammar to something that is obviously incorrect. Then a bunch of grammar Nazis jerk their knees and come in and correct him. THEY HAVE BEEN TROOLED. THEY HAVE LOOSED. THEY SHOULD EATHER HAVE A NEICE DAY OR FUCK OF AND DYE.

    1. Re:mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem.
      Sorry to tell you this, but I think you've got a few spelling mistakes in your post.

    2. Re:mod parent up by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Legally, you are correct. Ethically, I disagree. This isn't like bootlegging DVDs. TV Content is broadcast for free. I fail to see the harm in people downloading something that was broadcast for free anyway.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    3. Re:MOD PARENT UP by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down. What a worthless comment.

      (I'll probably get modded down for saying this, but I have karma to burn.)

      --
      My other car is first.
    4. Re:mod parent up by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Autistic scheduling is that did in Family Guy.

      Hopefully FOX doesn't fuck it up this time.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    5. Re:mod parent up by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The recording industries tried to make player piano rolls, cassette tapes, library loans, DAT, video tape, second hand music stores and recordable CD's illegal. They all failed, and now recording content is considered fair use. The various industries over the last hundred years insisted that libraries, VCR's, player pianos, and second-hand book and CD stores would ruin them and put their poor starving children on the street to sell apples. Didn't happen. They are ALL richer than God now. They've no argument.

      They now insist that file sharing is illegal; such opinions should be adjudged by their previous legal opinions on the above media. They were wrong then, and they will be wrong again someday when the political axis shifts in a decade or so and new judges and lawmakers dump their player piano roll-hating screeds into the dumper of history.

      Aside from the hubris of their ideas of controlling everyone's actions, the world can't afford another War on a Common Noun. IF we somehow manage to prevent the corporations from hiring their own police forces and forming their own courts/collection agencies, the civil and criminal courts and normal law enforcement do not have the capacity or the funds to arrest and prosecute the entire planet. Half the adult population of the U.S. and Europe would be in prison or a debtor's farm if these laws were to be enforced to their fullest extent.

      Unlike the Bill of Rights, which don't change with the whim of the public, civil law about copyright and distribution will change if enough citizens become "criminals". They will change the laws, even if they have to vote every idiot who covers the old corporate bastards out of office. People don't like being sued and sent to jail when they don't think what they are doing is wrong. And make no mistake, they will turn. Their is no moral issue here; copying is not stealing. Lighting a candle with another candle doesn't diminish either, as Tom Jefferson said. We didn't create copyright to make people rich and loaded with "rights" to distribute media and knowledge. We created CR to permit authors to make a living, for a limited time, on new art, and then to let it be free to inspire new art. If CR no longer serves that purpose, it has to go.

      As for me, I lost all sympathy for the copyright holders when the Sonny Bono Act made copyrights eternal. There was a 200 year-old deal: we give you a limited time to make money, and a living, then it gets kicked into the public domain. That deal is broken, and it isn't getting fixed. I do not want to see "intellectual property" eternally locked up in the vaults of immortal corporations. Human advancement requires that works of art and science be distribute freely, at some point, but that no longer can happen. The deal is broken. We did not break it. They did. So, war. And we will win, and the copyright gods will lose.

    6. Re:mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a couple of months or years, what about infinity because it will never broadcast.

      Whats next Toiletmakers that are gone tell how many times a day you may use your toilet. I hyave no satelite and don't live in America for example but what is send freely and undecoded in the air is up for grabs.

    7. Re:MOD PARENT UP by DJCacophony · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down. What a worthless comment.

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    8. Re:mod parent up by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      Just to play devil's advocate, but the broadcast wasn't necessarily completely free. Sure, you did not have to pay cash in order to recieve the broadcast, but the network is able to do this because they charge for advertising. You effectively pay for the content by watching commercials (regardless of whether or not you actually watch them).

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    9. Re:mod parent up by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      To play devil's advocate to you in return, if the commercials are included with the download, where's the harm?

      The advertisers win, because they get additional viewers of their content. The networks win, because advertisers will be willing to pay higher rates because of the knowledge that even more people will see their ads.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    10. Re:mod parent up by bender647 · · Score: 1
      Unlike the Bill of Rights, which don't change with the whim of the public, civil law about copyright and distribution will change if enough citizens become "criminals". They will change the laws, even if they have to vote every idiot who covers the old corporate bastards out of office.

      You would think so, but I commute daily with tens of thousands of other drivers. We are all routinely doing 20 mph over the speed limit, all breaking the law, yet the speed limits have not been raised.

    11. Re:mod parent up by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 1
      I think you'd like the talk on DRM given to the Microsoft Research group on why they should abandon DRM. It was delivered by Cory Doctorow, science fiction writer and European Affairs Coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), among other things. Find it here:

      http://www.kottke.org/04/06/cory-drm-talk

      --
      I am not left-handed, either!
    12. Re:mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving 20mph over the speed limit may endager the lives of yourselves and those around you and the law will not change for public safety. Downloading the latest episode of your favourite tv programme will not and so the law can be more flexible.

    13. Re:mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHA yer an idiot, we must have all been driving 55 even before cars could do so.

  31. Share! by jamienk · · Score: 4, Funny

    I share. That cool guy over there shares. That hot chick, she shares too! Doctors share. Artists share. Judges share. Priests, milkmaids, garbagemen, executives, teachers, uncles, mailmen -- they all share. Old and young, smart and dumb (dumb, but nice!), people with good taste and people with conventional likes and dislikes; Chinese and Amsterdamish, Black, Brown, Yelllow and Red, Whites too; young girls (giggling), pippled-faced boys, pregnant women, bearded professors -- they ALL share!

    Isn't it about time you shared too?

    Have a nice day -- AND SHARE!!! :)

    1. Re:Share! by snuf23 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah I am waiting for the MPAA/RIAA to push through legislation to change our educational system to teach kindergarten kids not to share, because sharing is evil.

      Bobby: "I want to play with the blocks, can I have some blocks?"

      Suzie: "No! Fuck off Bobby, sharing is Evil! Teacher! Bobby's trying to make me share!"

      Teacher: "Now Bobby you go and take a time out - you KNOW sharing is bad!"

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    2. Re:Share! by Chmarr · · Score: 1

      Ah... see... the problem is the mis-use of the word 'share'. People who copy like using the word 'share' for their activities because it lessens the illegal impact of their activities. "It's just sharing... and sharing can't be wrong, can it?"

      The point is, they're not 'sharing'. They're copying and redistributing, and those two words certainly don't have the niceties attached to it.

      "Sharing" implies you giving up your resources so someone else can use them. This is NOT what is happening with redistributing. If I put my file onto a website, I've made one copy. And doing that allows OTHERS to make copies every time it's downloaded. This is true regardless of whether you're using FTP, HTTP or BitTorrent. A copy is being made. There is noone that is 'denied' the resource just because someone else is using it, so there's no 'sharing' involved. It's just copying, plain and simple.

      An example of "Sharing" would be allowing someone to borrow my (legitimately purchased) DVD to watch a show. While the person has it, I can no longer watch the show, until he gives it back. (Give it back, you bastard! :) )

      So... think about that every time you see the word 'sharing' being used.

    3. Re:Share! by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      Right. Which is why they should stop using the term "filesharing". Because now we have ads telling us not to "share files" because it takes food of the tables of the poor underpaid gaffers and key grips.
      It is a misuse of the term, and it is misused by the RIAA and MPAA and every part of the media when reporting on these things.
      Peer to peer file duplication, not sharing.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    4. Re:Share! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sharing" implies you giving up your resources so someone else can use them

      same thing with selling a product. some resources have been expended that need to be charged for.
      Their distribution method has been broken by the internet no question about it. they need to adapt or die and if they do die then there will be a lot less stuff to download and everyone looses.

    5. Re:Share! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah... see... the problem is the mis-use of the word 'share'. People who copy like using the word 'share' for their activities because it lessens the illegal impact of their activities. "It's just sharing... and sharing can't be wrong, can it?"

      And people against copying like to misuse the word 'steal' because it overstates the illegal impact of said activities.

      Both sides play the same game here.

    6. Re:Share! by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      Didn't they already do that? Rather, haven't they already tried? I recall seeing an article about that somewhere. Might have been on /.

    7. Re:Share! by Chmarr · · Score: 1

      I would think that using 'steal' has a better justification than using the word 'share'. The act IS illegal (whether you like it or not). I do agree that the word 'steal' has an implication that you're denying the resource to the original owner, which is not true in the case of copying.

      A (possibly poor) analogy would be taking someone's car without permission, driving it around for a bit, and then returning it before the owner really needed it. The owner has not been denied a resource... perhaps he didn't even notice... but the act was still illegal. In legal terms, it was not theft, but (according to at least California law), it's called "Trespass of Chattels".

      Perhaps we should use that from now on? :)

    8. Re:Share! by welthqa · · Score: 1

      no, that's just silly. I steal the shows then I share them with my soldier friends overseas who don't get to watch current shows in Iraq. Then the MPAA steals the BT websites I used to use, and forces the soldiers to buy pirated movies from the local vendor on the corner so they can be reminded of home.

      --


      100% Pure Evil With The Look And Feel Of Wholesome Goodness
  32. Really? by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apparently it is OK to record TV as long as your aren't sharing it.

    Yeah, that would be the whole "for private home exhibitation only" clause you saw scroll by when watching rented movies. :rolleyes:

    Really, would the fact you are distributing the program for free interfere with the studio's business of selling the series on DVD? I wonder...

    1. Re:Really? by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess it depends on the quality of the show.

      There was no way I'd have been able to watch the new Battlestar Galactica on Sky - for one, the frequent open-heart-surgery-length advert breaks would get on my nerves, and second it was always on at a time when I was busy - 8pm isn't really my ideal TV time.

      So, I downloaded them bia bittorrent to check them out, and was very impressed. It was a necessary trial before going out and buying the DVDs - both the series 1 box set and the mini series. There's no way I'd put down cash for the DVDs without first checking out the show.

      I do the same thing with music. If I hear something I like on the radio I download the album or single (I like to listen to the actual music - less chat, less adverts, more music please). If the album is an good, I'll buy it (better lately, since the iTunes Music Store came along, buying is quicker and easier than ever). If the album is crap, I'll just get rid of it (why keep it around if it's crap?)

      Maybe the music industry (and the TV industry) loses money because I don't trial material by buying it o see if I like it, but given the price of music, TV and films, I prefer it my way.

    2. Re:Really? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      You know, I think ethiopians are stealing from Jenny Craig(I am too, actually). By constantly being starving for free, they're interfering with Jenny Craigs business of selling "stop eating you fat bastard" to fat bastards.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    3. Re:Really? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Im happy with adverts but when you pay for your TV _and_ get adverts thats just taking the piss. Also in some places, the shows you want just aren't on TV yet - especially American shows in other countries, I want to see shows right now and im prepared to pay or watch adverts, but unless they're coming on TV or DVD right now, im going to go to other sources because theres no reason to delay their release.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    4. Re:Really? by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      Really, would the fact you are distributing the program for free interfere with the studio's business of selling the series on DVD?

      Yeah, those Daily Show DVDs are selling really well. And I can't wait for the release of the ABC Evening News 1990-1993 box set.

    5. Re:Really? by jjr1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      50 cents a show is totally unrealistic. You're probably looking at 1.99 or 2.99 if itunes charges .99 cents for a song. Or even more likely than that you'd get access to the library for 9.99 monthly recurring charge. The real thing holding back this type of setup though is the number of people that it takes to distribute something internationally as you have many different companies licensing the content for their airwaves and fearful that new distribution methods will hurt their viewership. I'd be surprised if it didn't. You also have syndication and dvd sales to worry about.

      --
      Best Trivia answer ever... Name the largest aquatic man eater... Contestant: Tsunami
    6. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quite apart from which.. TV advertising is no guarantee of sales, people have learned to ignore them.

      The main buyers of TV advertising are huge companies who do it because their competitors do. Millions are spent on TV spots merely out of fear that if they do not, their brand will cease to resonate with consumers.

      BitTorrent or not, TV advertising money isn't going to dry up anytime soon..

  33. Re:btefnet by Buelldozer · · Score: 0, Troll

    When I hit the "submit" button there were to parent posts and NO children in either of them.

    His "submit" button was .01 seconds faster then mine. It doesn't make me redundant...it does however make the moderators stupid.

  34. Duh? by Josuah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apparently it is OK to record TV as long as your aren't sharing it.

    Duh? Television shows are still copyrighted material. Distribution is not your right after recording it. Fair use only applies to personal use of the recorded show.

    1. Re:Duh? by Teja · · Score: 1

      Though I still can't figure out how I can get my TV shows considering that I live in an area where that particular channel isn't offered and the only other option is to wait another year to get the DVD.

      --
      - Teja
    2. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how the hell are those who DON'T have a TV or cable suppoed to watch the show then? It's bloody damn time the studios print DVD's of their shows thru the season via distribution via NetFlix or something. They got their stupid money, they should be running the torrent servers. Sell banner ads for all I care. I've been using the internet for freaking 10+ years and I've clicked on a banner ad what, 5 times?

    3. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Books are copyrighted material, too. And the last good book I read got passed around and read by all my friends and my family. And then I sold it to a used book store when I got it back! Am I to sit around and cower in fear that the PBAA (Printed Book Association of America) is gonna sic their team of lawyers on me?

      Oh, and I routinely skip over boring parts of books... slap me in leg irons.

    4. Re:Duh? by KillShill · · Score: 1

      and the content producers' rights are for reasonable limits on copyright durations. (not to mention DMCA alikes)

      and hence, when one side breaks a contract, it becomes null and void.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    5. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're demanding a duration *much* lower than that that existed before all the extensions, the content producers haven't broken their contract in these cases.

    6. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, Verizon?

      I don't have a phone, and so can't get in touch with your customers. It's bloody damn time that you fixed this problem for me. You got your stupid money from their line rental, you shouldn't take any from me.

    7. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but aren't you merely using someone else's video recorder to time-shift programmes? In advance in some cases, admittedly...

  35. Hasn't it always been this way? by comwiz56 · · Score: 1

    Apparently it is OK to record TV as long as your aren't sharing it.

    When has it not been this way?
    Recording something you can legally watch = fair use rights
    Sharing copyrighted works = copyright infringement

  36. To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apparently it is OK to record TV as long as your aren't sharing it

    Well, to be fair, that is the law.

  37. Silly TV companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Being that TV show downloads have been available for quite a while I just want to know:

    Is their any reason to believe that these downloads are causing people to watch any less TV?

    Being that TV show downloads predate DVD sales of TV series do the Companies have any proof that downloads affect their sales?

    Seriously, the average person downloads a TV show because they either missed the episode (or liked the episode enough to want to see it again) and aren't willing to wait months for the season to be over to see their episode (or the years until a DVD is available for sale).

  38. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I actually work with the guy who runs the server for that site. I just IMed him -- interestingly enough, he said he hasn't gotten anything in the mail yet.

    Funny too -- on Tuesday he told me how lucky he felt not to have received a C&D yet, given that the server is in New York. Although this says he's be sued -- not just receiving a C&D -- which he calls "really bad bad news" :(

    We're just college students who want to imbue the wit of Jon Stewart, that's all!

  39. Fair Featured Friends by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

    Of course it's legally OK to record TV for your own consumption - that's a fair use of the copy you were given by the copyright holder. It will be good news when the copyright holders associations (primarily the MPAA and RIAA) acknowledge that fact explicitly. Especially now that their (MGM's, really) lawyers have acknowledged it in their Supreme Court arguments.

    And it's not legal to make a copy beyond that use. The right to copy is what "copyright" restricts to its owner. However, there are other fair uses of personal copies that should be protected in some online sharing that is exactly like in-person sharing. Our right to bring a record to a party, and listen to it with friends (and friends of friends), is protected. As is our right to loan our copy to a friend. If one of those friends makes a copy while they have temporary access during a protected sharing transaction, that copy is illegal - the unauthorized copier is breaking copyright law.

    Those scenarios are fair not because of any feature of the physical copy, or the physical proximity of the friends. Rather, their recognized fairness is in recognition of the ancient tradition of friends sharing music, which the recent "temporary" artificial monopoly created by copyright didn't dare infringe. So our right to share music that way, in a shared simultaneous experience with friends, should be protected. If we're both tuned into a simultaneous stream of my music, that's fair use that's new only in the "space-shifting" feature, which doesn't define the sharing experience. The sooner we get the traditional fair use boundaries defined in terms of new technologies, the sooner we'll all be enjoying those familiar scenarios using the newer, freer media. And the sooner copyright owners will be reaching modern markets which want to use their material fairly.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Fair Featured Friends by A8bbNjwk · · Score: 1

      The law allows copyright holders to restrict (1) producing copies and (2) public performances of copyrighted works. Fair Use Doctrine provides exceptions to these restrictions. However, playing a record at a private party or loaning it to a friend do not involve making copies (1) or performing publicly (2). Those acts are outside the scope of copyright law -- they are irrelevant to fair use.

    2. Re:Fair Featured Friends by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Those who argue that multiple listeners to a stream are listening to "transient" or "ephemeral" copies of the record, which is prohibited copying. However, the transient copies in a record player at a party are protected. The Fair Use Doctrine is the protection of uses deemed "fair" (through traditional familiarity) which would otherwise be prohibited by copyright. Multiple listeners to a stream seems a modern way to fairly use the record, just as playing a record at a party was once a modern way to fairly use the performance. Of course, a listener to the stream recording it would violate the copyright.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Fair Featured Friends by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      Of course it's legally OK to record TV for your own consumption ...

      I've said this before, but I'll repeat it: I have absolutely no problem recording for my own personal use. My problem is with scheduling. The networks (in the US) have learned a new trick, which is to start and end the show not quite before or after the hour. The programming guides don't reflect it. I invariably end up missing part of a show, because I also want to watch/record something on another channel.

      It irks me, because they do this for ratings to keep you on their channel at the top of the hour. If I could throttle a TV exec and say "Just show the damn show when you say you will", I would.

    4. Re:Fair Featured Friends by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I think it's revealing how the MPAA members are gaming the TV guide system as you mention, and attacking its equivalent in the BT traffic directors. Those directors don't actually contain any content, and don't therefore break any copyrights. But they were successful in shutting down Napster's directory, so they've got their mission. Once the directories are decentralized, redundant, and especially encrypted, they'll be out of targets, and have to start going after people who actually created an unauthorized copy: the recipient.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Fair Featured Friends by A8bbNjwk · · Score: 1

      Restricting internet radio (for example) has nothing to do with transient copying, but with the public performance aspect of copyright. If your stream of copyrighted audio is limited to a few friends, i.e., not a public performance, then it does not violate copyright law and therefore does not need fair use protection. Copyright holders receive statutorily defined license fees for music broadcast (to the public) over the radio. Similar mandatory fees exist for public places like stores and restaurants. These fees originate in the public performance right of copyright, not in the right to restrict copying.

    6. Re:Fair Featured Friends by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'm very interested in your assessment that sharing a stream with a few friends is protected. Are you a lawyer? Do you have any references I can research to broaden and deepen my understanding of this protection? To be clear, my questions are not facaetious: I believe we have these rights, but was not aware that their status was so unambiguous as you seem to represent.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Fair Featured Friends by Luthair · · Score: 1

      You'd think that they'd need to prove that you knew someone who didn't have a right to obtain a copy did so.

    8. Re:Fair Featured Friends by A8bbNjwk · · Score: 2, Interesting
      IANAL but,

      Section 106(6) of Title 17 states,

      "[Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:] (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."

      Obviously the key to your question is the definition of "publicly", found in Section 101:

      "To perform or display a work "publicly" means--

      (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

      (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."

  40. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, you post a redundant post, say it's not redundant when it obviously is, and complain about getting modded down, and it's the moderators who are stupid.

  41. Don't panic by Bullfish · · Score: 1

    This reminds me entirely of napster and lokitorrent. It changed nothing. While annoying, this is as dumb as shooting one guy out of 1000 charging over a hill and declaring victory.

  42. recording for own use ok, distributing not??? WOW by atarione · · Score: 1

    WOW... and in other news, it's ok to make a fire... as long as you don't make it out of your neighbor's house. However seriously what on TV is worth recording??? My g/f has us set up w/ the mondo cable package at 99.8% of the stuff on TV is just crap. The only thing I went out of my way to watch in the last 6mos was the Battlestar Galactica a series.

    --
    actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
  43. ALL "Piracy" == Business Opportunity by argoff · · Score: 1

    1: Offer fast TV downloads for free, or offer legal torrents.

    2: Include the advertisements in the shows, and track how many people download them.

    3: Profit!!!

    The problem with this theory is that it assumes that the *AA are pro business. They are not, they do not want business opportunity, what they want is business monopoly granted to them by the government in the form of copyrights, with infinite force behind them.

    The truth and the problem is that copyrights are not free market. If the government gave Ford a monopoly on making cars, because they don't have an "incentive" to make them unless they could lock out everyone else - most people would see this as interference in free markets and overbearing government regulation.

    Well that is exactly the problem with copyright distribution monopolies. They are more like a massive overbearing government regulation on how people can share information than a "intellectual" property right. Here, the word "property" is just a label to hide unjust coercion of people, and has nothing to do with real property at all.

    1. Re:ALL "Piracy" == Business Opportunity by stubear · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The truth and the problem is that copyrights are not free market. If the government gave Ford a monopoly on making cars, because they don't have an "incentive" to make them unless they could lock out everyone else - most people would see this as interference in free markets and overbearing government regulation."

      See, this is the problem slashbots have understanding copyright. It's not locking up an idea for ever, it's granting the sole right of copying, distribution, performance, public display, and/or making derivatives or an original expression of an idea. To correct your automobile analogy, well not really correct it, just point out where you are wring, Ford is not granted the sole right to make cars. However, they are granted the sole right to make Ford Mustangs. Chevy is still going to make, and well within their right, to make the Corvette and Ford can just go stuff themselves if they want to make their own Corvette. They compete in the sports car market, NOT the Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Corvette markets.

      Let's apply this to television since analogies, especially car analogies, are often just plain wrong. fox is welcome to make The Simpson's (I know they don't make it, they have the rights to distribute it, work with me here a bit) and any other station that wants to air or create their own episodes of The Simpson's has to deal with Fox. NBC is welcome to start their own cartoon about a dysfunctional family, they just have to start from scratch and hope they can garner enough ratings to make it popular and compete against The Simpson's. Again, the market is not episodes of The Simpson's it's cartoons or sitcoms about dysfunctional families.

      This, in my opinion, is an acceptable "monopoly". FOX and NBC cannot have a monopoly on television though if their shows are popular enough they may obtain more of the television audience than other stations. If you want to compete you have to make a better, more original show than the other studios. If a studio spends the time, money, and effort developing and producing a hot show why should they have to compete with other studios for the same show? If you want to distribute the show across the internet you have to obtain the same rights and if the studio say no you are more than welcome to develop and produce your own internet based cartoon or sitcom and share it however you like. If it's good you might even get a studio interested but don't count your chickens.

  44. Re:btefnet by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

    good thing they didn't go after my favorite, which is...

  45. Solution by blueadept1 · · Score: 0

    So their problem is advertising is getting cut out, right? Why not take advantage of other advertising mediums such as product placement? It has taken off in movies such as Minority Report and The Matrix series, why not more in TV?

    As well, this way they can cram more crap into their stations, as each TV show will take up 16 minutes less per hour (That's 6.4 more hours per day to insert infomercials and other garbage tv shows).

  46. Ah crap... by agraupe · · Score: 1

    In Canada, there is no way to get HBO legally. The only option is BitTorrent or an illegal American satilite (sp?) dish. I'd pay for it if I could get it, but as it is, I have to download the excellent programming with BitTorrent. What they don't understand is that they need to make it available for people to pay them, before they starting bitching about piracy.

    1. Re:Ah crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      satilite (sp?) dish


      I'd be glad to! It's spelled satellite.
    2. Re:Ah crap... by SecretMethod70 · · Score: 1

      I have a similar case here. I've been watching a certain awesome BBC show thanks to one of those sites because we don't get the BBC here at all.

    3. Re:Ah crap... by Kris_J · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Australian here. Looks like I've watched my last Daily Show for a while.

    4. Re:Ah crap... by pestilence4hr · · Score: 1
      Australian here. Looks like I've watched my last Daily Show for a while.

      Does nobody even bother to check if it's available legally online?
    5. Re:Ah crap... by Archon-X · · Score: 1

      I think the parent post raises a great point:
      Until the MPAA** can come up with a solution for proper, fair distribution, piracy is inevitable.

    6. Re:Ah crap... by Kris_J · · Score: 1
      Does nobody even bother to check if it's available legally online?
      Except that's only selected segments and I have no idea what they think they're offering, but it doesn't work where I am.
    7. Re:Ah crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A low-quality version of tonight's is listed on mininova.

  47. Txt version of the PDF file by Teja · · Score: 1

    here is (originally PDF but converted to txt) what ShunTV has recieved by the MPAA explaining why they've been shut down.

    --
    - Teja
    1. Re:Txt version of the PDF file by Luthair · · Score: 1

      "Since we began shutting these sites down, the time that it takes to download a file on BitTorrent has increased exponentially which means the experience of downloading copyrighted films and TV shows is not what it used to be," said Glickman. "We intend to make it even worse. Protecting the television industry is essential."

      If it had any effect at all, which I doubt, you'd think that driving more users to fewer trackers would actually increase download speeds with bittorrent.

  48. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For what it's worth, I always mark "redundant" unfair in m2.

  49. Damn, I want to butt fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just want'd to let you know

  50. jeez, enough already by aendeuryu · · Score: 1

    Ok, this is the fourth response along the lines of "They want you to watch the ads, not the shows", and while I understand the importance of ads for these shows, I'm not buying it -- and yes, I already am pretty cynical about tv.

    Television is increasingly reaching a point where it's competing against other forms of entertainment for consumer attention -- pay tv, movies & dvd rentals and purchases, the internet, video games, etc. These forms don't all subscribe to traditional media and advertising practices, and the television companies know this. We're actually at a point of really high quality television right now, arguably better than film, and that's a result of the networks realizing that it's worth it to give us good shows and diverse programming so that television can remain a viable source of income for them, and ensure continued audience penetration.

    So yeah, the ads are their way of getting revenue, but the ads wouldn't be placed if the television shows sucked. That's why shows get cancelled -- they want people watching their shows.

  51. mod parent up by Luke727 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Recording is fair use. Distributing is not fair use (even if you are not profiting from it). MPAA is well within their right to go after these sites that take part in distributing their stuff. Still, I would be more than willing to pay for a decent quality download straight from the horse's mouth instead of some shitty divx rip that some numbnuts fucked up. Sometimes the lag from broadcast to DVD is just too fucking long. It also sucks if you're in another country and have to wait a couple of months (or even years) until it is broadcast.

    --
    If you find this post offensive, don't read it! THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING! I am what I am because of how apes behave.
  52. This is like suing your wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and still wanting to remain married to her. Somehow, I don't think she'll be in the mood for conjugal relations.

    Note to the MPAA: Provide TV shows online for a reasonable price, and you'll make a hell of a lot more money than you will from these lawsuits. Start suing customers, and you'll see just how frigid a bitch they can be.

  53. Re:btefnet by Aeiri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sadly, btefnet is on the list. Where will I get The Daily Show and Dr. Who if they go down?

    EXACTLY!! I live in the US, I mean how the hell am I supposed to watch Dr. Who? Wait 5 or 6 years for the DVD box set to come out here? I'll lose interest by then!

    This was the last straw. As soon as all the shows I'm watching are over for this season, I'm done. No movies, no DVD purchases, no more TV. Not even downloads. I'm no longer a part of this society.

  54. If it wasnt for BT ... by meanfriend · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... I wouldnt be watching Lost now. It's a densely packed storyline and I missed a couple episodes a while back. When I finally got back to it, someone who I thought was dead was alive and I didnt know what the f**k was going on.

    I was able to catch up on BT, and now I can follow it when it broadcasts. Otherwise I would have said to hell with it, and they would have lost a viewer (no pun intended).

    If past episodes were made available for download at a reasonable price, I would have paid for a handful of previous shows. I wouldnt even care if it was full commercials and DRM'd up the wazoo. For $2-$3 per episode, I would consider it just like a rental or buying a movie ticket. ie. a disposable purchase.

    Though I wonder how many people would download torrents instead of buying the inevitable DVD release. The quality of the episodes I saw was so poor that if I was really such a big fan of the show, a 300 MB divx would be no substitute for the proper DVD boxset. For many people though, if the downloaded episodes are 'good enough', then I could see how it could potentially impact DVD sales.

    1. Re:If it wasnt for BT ... by Tenken · · Score: 1

      Actually, most shows available on bittorrent are recorded from HDTV sources, Lost included. I think you were just downloading a VCD copy or something, because the downloaded files sure as hell look as good as the DVD box sets. They even have the poential to look much better than the DVD ever could, just take a look at the full HD resolution, 5.1 surround, files out there.

    2. Re:If it wasnt for BT ... by kasek · · Score: 1

      ya, i prefer to download lost, because the HDTV rips are better quality than my analog tv, sad to say. and theyre in widescreen, yay!

  55. Down goes piratebay, Down goes piratebay... by John+Seminal · · Score: 3, Funny
    Appears slashdot did what the MPAA could not.

    Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /var/tracker/www/include/statsdb.inc.php on line 16

    Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /var/tracker/www/include/statsdb.inc.php on line 17

    Warning: mysql_query(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /var/tracker/www/include/statsdb.inc.php on line 19

    Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /var/tracker/www/include/statsdb.inc.php on line 16

    Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /var/tracker/www/include/statsdb.inc.php on line 17

    Warning: mysql_query(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /var/tracker/www/include/statsdb.inc.php on line 19

    Anyways, I wonder how the hell these fuckers are able to stick their dicks in the air agianst powerful studios and lobby groups.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Down goes piratebay, Down goes piratebay... by Keruo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      simple answer, the law itself

      They are in sweden, MPAA/RIAA cannot touch them, since they don't violate any swedish laws.
      And they have their own lawyers to consult any possible borderline areas.

      But this isn't going to last very long.
      Sweden is changing their copyright law, though it's only proposed law now, and if it passes as it is, it might kick in as early as june or july.
      The law focuses on taking down people making profit with illegal filesharing.
      You can guess twice if they're paying for all this from their own pockets.
      This page is pretty much the thing that makes piratebay illegal under the new law. If they could pay the stuff from their own pocket without accepting any donations, the law couldn't touch them.
      They're in trouble if they keep the tracker running and continue with the current way.

      --
      There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    2. Re:Down goes piratebay, Down goes piratebay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Appears slashdot did what the MPAA could not.
      With six major sites under attack by the xxAAs (The blood just got put in the water, I'm sure the RIAA will join the gangbang), piratebay's load would have gone up anyway.

      Anyways, I wonder how the hell these fuckers are able to stick their dicks in the air agianst powerful studios and lobby groups.
      Piratebay is in a country with different copyright laws than the US & UK. What they're doing is legal in their country. On their legal threats page they explain the appropriate laws in a very amusing manner to numerous foreign lawyers.

      Hence they cannot be shut down, since US law does not apply when the server & it's owners live in a foreign country. Well, unless they're living there illegally or something, I'm sure extradition could be worked out for any US citizens moving overseas and trying to pull something like this.

      After the MPAA tried to railroad that kid who created DeCSS (though, more appropriately, after those actions got a lot of bad press), countries have been less helpful with US-based xxAA organizations. Foreign countries think their laws should apply to actions committed by citizens of their country while residing IN their country. Wacky concept, eh?

      I wonder how long until the xxAAs get Congress to implement the Great Firewall of China on US soil?
    3. Re:Down goes piratebay, Down goes piratebay... by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

      What if they set it up as a non profit corporation, taking down the donate page when they have a ton of money saved up (a year of operating costs?), putting it back up once its spent and keeping detailed records of how it was spent. It is my understanding that they can even pay themselves a fair wage for operating it (the Breast Cancer Society must have paid administrators and stuff) as long as it is clear that the corporation is a non profit one making no money.

      --
      Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
    4. Re:Down goes piratebay, Down goes piratebay... by Afty0r · · Score: 1
      Sweden is changing their copyright law, though it's only proposed law now, and if it passes as it is, it might kick in as early as june or july.
      The law focuses on taking down people making profit with illegal filesharing.
      So could they start up a non-profit organisation to handle the donations?
    5. Re:Down goes piratebay, Down goes piratebay... by larytet · · Score: 1

      and that's why i removed donations button from my project

    6. Re:Down goes piratebay, Down goes piratebay... by InfallibleLies · · Score: 1

      Accepting donations doesn't mean they're making a profit from them. Most likely, they'll have to keep some detailed records of all money coming in and going out, showing that none is going into their pockets.

  56. Cause the TV Networks need to learn by Ka+D'Argo · · Score: 5, Informative
    I've gotten my fair share of tv shows from online, some through BT some not.

    What's funny is the MPAA and other companies scream up a storm of how it's illegal and wrong, have they ever stopped to consider how much of a fucking monopoloy tv is?

    Case in point, I'm a huge sci fi fan. Take Trek as a main example. Sure if I'm at home during the day around 1pm I can catch TNG/DS9 reruns on "Spike" TV but most people with day jobs aren't home at that hour. Sure I could Tivo/DVR/VHS tape it but then again you have to deal with the inconsistances of stuff being prempted, etc Not to mention you're paying to record the stuff, those VHS tapes and blank DVD's aren't free, if you record it yer at least spending X amount of money on blank media.

    So as most people are unlucky to not be able to tape shows, such as my example, what options do we have?;

    - Wait till reruns begin/occur. Some shows are already in rerun syndication on other networks. Take Stargate. It has new episodes of SG-1 on the Sci Fi channel. but if you turn on say, the WB at 3 am some nights you catch old reruns of it. This falls into the above example of being able to record such things, as such times, in an affordable manner. And that doesn't take into account the current season of a show. Smallville just ended it's season (I think), so if you missed the last few episodes of the season you gotta wait till the end of Summer when the reruns of that season "catch up".

    - Buy the seasonal DVD's. Ok this is my main deterent. I'm a huge Trek fan, have been for 15 years. I own not one season or movie of Trek on DVD. Why? Walk into the cheapest department store there is. Seriously, go to Walmart or K-Mart or Target. See those prices? $80-100 for ONE season of basically any Trek. $80 fucking dollars. I don't need 20 extra DVD's, sure their nice but I just want the series, in DVD format in DVD quality all in one nice little package. I honestly cannont justify paying more than $30-40 per season of a TV show. If you want all 7 seasons of a Trek series, it's almost $800......I can buy a god damn CAR for that (or at least put a downpayment on a nice one). Now some DVD's have become more, economical. This past Christmas when Buffy season 7 came out, they released a holiday package deal, all 7 seasons for around $200-250. That is reasonable. I can justify that purchase for the cost. And you still can find a deal here there, Amazon.com knocks off a couple hundred bucks on big series like Trek, but still not much... Now remember when I said go to a department store? Try a large chain store like Best Buy, EB, Suncoast, Media Play, etc..Double those prices.

    - Avaiblility. Remeber how I mentioned the cheap stores and big expensive chain stores? What do you see most of in the dvd sections at Walmart or Kmart? New Releases. Sure they have a handful of tv seasonal dvd's but most likely the last that was released (i.e. you'll find Stargate Season 7 but not Season 1...). So what are you left with? Going to a store that specializes in electronics and shit like Best Buy or Samgoodie, whom have a nice HUGE selection of DVDs and such but charge INSANE prices. ($1200 for all of DS9 last time I checked...)

    The quality of tv just doesn't justify things in the end. I mean, for every Trek dvd or Scape DVD that's fairly expensive you'll find CRAP like American Idol or the latest incarnation of Survivor selling like hot-fucking-cakes for half the price. Hell I haven't watched anything on the Fox network in years (except 24) cause every night it's their prime time lineup of "Reality TV" shit. ABC, CBS etc follow either in the same suit or throwing out the 14th different spinoff of CSI or Law & Order o_O

    When prices are reasonable or tv schedules become more flexible in correlation with recording media prices then maybe I won't use BT for my source of entertainment.

    --
    Aw Frell this
    1. Re:Cause the TV Networks need to learn by PPH · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think the battle over broadcast content will differ from that of movies/DVDs.

      With the latter, the studios are trying to protect their revenue stream and that of the first release distribution stream of the theaters (protecting their popcorn revenue, you know).

      With broadcast TV, the advertisers want access to the viewers. In some cases, these advertisers are local, so even if you promised to watch all the ads in a downloaded program, it would do them no good if the original was captured in a different market. The sponsors may not be willing to allow an ad free version for a fee, since they aren't in the business of selling the programs. They just want your eyeballs.

      If the local broadcasters are smart, they'll figure out how to serve their own copies of aired shows (with ads, of course) and even keep the ads up to date if they are time sensitive.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Cause the TV Networks need to learn by 9Nails · · Score: 1

      Right on!

      I would consider myself a Star-Trek fan, but I'd never pay that much for a season either. I'm even more froogle, I'd gladly drop $14.99 on a season. That's all I'd spend. I watched the shows for free, now they want me to pay dearly for it? No thanks, but maybe an exceptional bonus materials package would be worth the $14.99 to me. Especially if it's still stock footage and not remastered with enhanced 5.1 audio. If the price gets any higher than that, and I'm going to turn to alternate sources for the same shows, including P2P.

      And I'm also a huge Dragonball & DBZ/GT fan. I'd gladly paid $300 for my autographed poster. That has a certain value to it for me. But didn't sponsors pay for these shows when they aired the first time?! And now they are airing re-runs, that's like bonus bucks or royalty's for a record studio isn't it?! But now that the TV studio got around to mastering a DVD, and put some nice art work on it, packaged it, and wants $19.98 per episode?! Guys, this show has over 500 Episodes! Hang on a minute!!! This is just too crazy for a show that aired for free on Cartoon Network a year ago. What's worse is that the transfer is exactly from the TV, the audio is still 2 channel stereo, and there is no bonus materials to speak of!

      Basically, they want to get full price of a Hollywood movie on a TV budget. No thanks mister! Now that your consumer has demanded lower prices, are they going to comply or simply complain to the court?

    3. Re:Cause the TV Networks need to learn by funaho · · Score: 1

      What probably worries the MPAA is that eventually the people who ARE in the business of selling the programs will figure out that they can cut the networks out of the picture entirely and just sell straight to the customer over the Internet. It's pretty much the same effect the Internet has had on the music industry and for that matter pretty much everything other industry that it has run up against.

      The ones who should really be scared are the TV stations, because this will just be one more reason not to watch broadcast TV. The cable and sat operators can just jack up their subscription prices to offset any losses.

    4. Re:Cause the TV Networks need to learn by sedmonds · · Score: 1

      TV is not a monopoly. TV programming is plentiful (entertaining is another matter altogether). TV networks are plentiful.

      However, a series/mini-series/made-for-tv-movie may provide a network with exclusive rights to air their program. That particular programs distribution may be considered monopolistic, but looking at it broadly there are countless substitutes so the monopoly argument falls apart.

      Even if it didn't, though, you've boiled down the issue to you wanting it without consideration for the content copyright holders' rights. There may well be a case to be made for indefinite copyright being immoral, but that isn't the case you're presenting. You're saying that you want control of the copyright holders' distribution rights. That isn't how things work under current law, so the content producers and distributors are, correctly, pursuing civil remedy.

      Call me old fashioned, but I don't believe that I'm entitled to dictate the terms of distribution to the folks that produce content beyond the influence of choosing to consume or not consume under their terms. There are plenty of series I'd like to see, some of which will likely never be aired again nor will they be released on DVD, even at outrageously high prices. C'est la vie.

    5. Re:Cause the TV Networks need to learn by Ka+D'Argo · · Score: 1
      I'm not saying the copyright holders shouldn't get their fair share, they should.

      BUT, at the same time, these people and the companies underneath them do not need to hold the consumer over a barrell for such things.

      Couple good points;

      - For the price of 1 normally purchased Trek, DBZ etc Seasonal dvd you can literally buy 2 full name brand DVD players. I kid you not. For the $120 you're paying for say, DS9 season 1 you can walk into Walmart and get 2 nice dvd players. When you can buy the god damn hardware cheaper than the dvd....

      - Fans of long running shows that are still going, are uber-fucked. Now I'm not a fan of say, Law & Order, but it's running on 15 god damn seasons man. 15. Average $60-100 a season and the fact it's still going....

      - When you can finance a perfectly good brand new car, almost the same price or cheaper than some long series/still going series, that's a sign that DVD's cost too fucking much

      - There are no other mass media storage of seasonal shows sold. When's the last time you say, walked into ANY store that sells a good bit of movies/tv shows and saw say, E.R. Season 1 on VHS? Now I realize it's come to the point and has been for a while that DVD is the current format for media being produced for home collection of movies and tv shows right? So if I wanna buy Spiderman 2 I can pick up the $6 VHS tape at Walmart. If I wanna by E.R. season 1 on VHS, I'm fucked cause THEY DON'T PRODUCE THEM. Our ONLY option for buying in stores is DVD.

      - Options for storage at home in the form of recording yourself are limited. You got VHS which for the price, limit and actual size it takes to store a large quantity of them it is not practical. You figure you can fit what, 6 hours on a VHS? (less it's been upped ot 8 since last I checked). That's 6 episodes of something. 5 if you count all commericals and such. Average season of a tv show is 20+eps sometimes 30+ multiply that by say an average of 5 or 6 seasons and you got a fuck load of VHS tapes taking up room, which means you gotta shell out MORE money for a shelf or bookcase for them. DVD's while cheaper and can store more, require something to record from. A DVR, Tivo, video card with tv in/output and dvd burner etc Again more money to be spent to simply record tv shows.

      Now I know, they aren't breaking any laws. they're companies and as such will do what they can to make a profit. But personally I'll be god damned if I'll hand them my personal money.

      - The WB, fucked over Angel for shit like "The Mountain". They want $60 a season, fuck them.

      - Fox, I love Family Guy and the Simpsons, but I swear to christ if I see The Bachelor X-Treme Island Paradise Couples Hookup 3 in some primetime slot that could have been given to oh I don't know, FIREFLY...fuck them.

      - ABC/CBS/NBC, a couple ok shows on each of them (Lost, Joan of Arcadia, etc) but for every good show they have they also have another scraping-the-barrell sitcom trying to live up to Friends or Seinfeld. If Lost is a reasonable price, I'll buy it.

      - SCIFI & UPN, well Paramount fucked Trek up the ass with a mountain troll sized dildo. And as said I will not pay $80+ for a Trek season. Sci Fi, I love Stargate and Atlantis, reasonable price I'll buy it. They cancelled Farscape :( and really rushed The Peacekeeper Wars so......

      Now you may chalk this up to me being a bitter fan boy of shows whom have had a bad luck run of cancelations. This is true but at the same time these shows I watch, theres another million+ of me out there whom love good tv like this but won't bend over so 20th Century Fox or Paramount can light their cigars whilst burning a hundred dollar bill.

      Frell them

      --
      Aw Frell this
    6. Re:Cause the TV Networks need to learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      - Options for storage at home in the form of recording yourself are limited. You got VHS which for the price, limit and actual size it takes to store a large quantity of them it is not practical. You figure you can fit what, 6 hours on a VHS? (less it's been upped ot 8 since last I checked). That's 6 episodes of something. 5 if you count all commericals and such. Average season of a tv show is 20+eps sometimes 30+ multiply that by say an average of 5 or 6 seasons and you got a fuck load of VHS tapes taking up room, which means you gotta shell out MORE money for a shelf or bookcase for them. DVD's while cheaper and can store more, require something to record from. A DVR, Tivo, video card with tv in/output and dvd burner etc Again more money to be spent to simply record tv shows.


      Actually, the dvds usually only put between 2 and 4 (inclusive mind you) episodes (22 minute ones, 1/2 hour time slots). Those 7-13 discs still take up less space than the dvds, but it is entertaining when you find series where there were more episodes on the VHS than on the dvd.
    7. Re:Cause the TV Networks need to learn by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      - For the price of 1 normally purchased Trek, DBZ etc Seasonal dvd you can literally buy 2 full name brand DVD players. I kid you not. For the $120 you're paying for say, DS9 season 1 you can walk into Walmart and get 2 nice dvd players. When you can buy the god damn hardware cheaper than the dvd....

      Yep, content is more expensive than hardware. What's your point?

      - There are no other mass media storage of seasonal shows sold. When's the last time you say, walked into ANY store that sells a good bit of movies/tv shows and saw say, E.R. Season 1 on VHS? Now I realize it's come to the point and has been for a while that DVD is the current format for media being produced for home collection of movies and tv shows right? So if I wanna buy Spiderman 2 I can pick up the $6 VHS tape at Walmart. If I wanna by E.R. season 1 on VHS, I'm fucked cause THEY DON'T PRODUCE THEM. Our ONLY option for buying in stores is DVD.

      Other than a few exceptions, that's all there ever has been. Before the advent of the DVD the back catalog of TV shows were generally not available to the consumer.

      - Options for storage at home in the form of recording yourself are limited.

      Limited by what?

      You got VHS which for the price, limit and actual size it takes to store a large quantity of them it is not practical. You figure you can fit what, 6 hours on a VHS? (less it's been upped ot 8 since last I checked). That's 6 episodes of something. 5 if you count all commericals and such.

      I don't follow your math here. A 1 hour episode is 1 hour with commercials, about 44 minutes without.

      Average season of a tv show is 20+eps sometimes 30+ multiply that by say an average of 5 or 6 seasons and you got a fuck load of VHS tapes taking up room, which means you gotta shell out MORE money for a shelf or bookcase for them.

      So even though VHS tapes are recorders are dirt cheap, you are complaining about having to buy bookshelves to hold them? What's next, complaining about the price of stickers and Sharpies to label your tapes?

      DVD's while cheaper and can store more, require something to record from. A DVR, Tivo, video card with tv in/output and dvd burner etc Again more money to be spent to simply record tv shows.

      You're right, you shouldn't have to spend money to record TV shows, you should get everything for free. The producers should buy you a TV, TiVo, VHS tapes (and shelves to hold them) and blank DVDs. While they're at it, they should pay your rent and buy you some food-after all you are giving them the huge gift of watching their show.

      If you think that prices for TV shows are too high, feel free to make your own kick-ass show and sell it for less.

      --

      Enigma

    8. Re:Cause the TV Networks need to learn by Ka+D'Argo · · Score: 1
      If you think that prices for TV shows are too high, feel free to make your own kick-ass show and sell it for less.

      Or you know, I could continue to "steal" or "pirate" these episodes. If I can watch them for free on my tv then damnit I should be able to see them for free at any time.

      Yep, content is more expensive than hardware. What's your point?

      Am I the only one who think's thats fucking stupid? It's like buying an Xbox for $200 and then going out and buying something like Halo 2 (normal non super uber collectors edition) for $300. Are you INSANE? The content is supposed to be cheaper. If that is not true then companies for every form of entertainment are stupid. Why spend $2000 on a kick ass computer when Half Life 2 or Doom 3 will cost you $4000?... DVD's are some how magically different?

      Other than a few exceptions, that's all there ever has been. Before the advent of the DVD the back catalog of TV shows were generally not available to the consumer.

      I'll give you the fact that VHS collections for say, a season of a show weren't common but you still could buy them, at cheaper prices. The selections were just more limited. So a wider selection means = increase the prices by 200%?

      So even though VHS tapes are recorders are dirt cheap, you are complaining about having to buy bookshelves to hold them? What's next, complaining about the price of stickers and Sharpies to label your tapes?

      Yes if you wanna look at it that way. VCR's are cheap as are blank VHS. As the one guy pointed out, the entire DB/Z/GT series has over 500 episodes and 20+ movies. That's over 200+ VHS tapes, probably close to 300. Who the fuck has room to store that many VHS tapes? Unless you want to just make gigantic stacks of them on your floor aganist a wall, then yer going to need shelf/box space of some kind.

      (this is the part where you tell me DVD's small size in casing and such is part of their cost so by reducing physical size we're paying more for it? FUCK THAT)

      You're right, you shouldn't have to spend money to record TV shows, you should get everything for free. The producers should buy you a TV, TiVo, VHS tapes (and shelves to hold them) and blank DVDs. While they're at it, they should pay your rent and buy you some food-after all you are giving them the huge gift of watching their show.

      At this point you're just trolling.

      I'm sorry but television is free. Yes I pay for my cable access but it's just that paying access. If you consider the amount per # of channels, yes TV is free. Hell even if I did not have cable and used Basic tv, I'd still get tv for free. And yes, there are advertisements, but I can choose to change the channel and back. And even then it's free and I can choose to watch it. If I miss something, I'm fucked as previously discussed.

      Maybe I'm just "strange" but I've always grown up on free television. I live with commericals and shit, but the money fucking of corporations is getting old

      --
      Aw Frell this
  57. Let me try this game... by HillaryWBush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The BFAA (Burger Flipper Association of America) served me with a lawsuit for $2500 last week, due to my "refrigeration of as many as three pounds of copyrighted food". Apparently their business model is based on consumers consuming consumables immediately. "If you don't eat it while it's hot, it's like stealing from us," they said. What can I do? I don't like sitting in their restaurant because it smells like hot grease. They insist I have to because the advertisements in the joint are being delivered bundled with the food.

    1. Re:Let me try this game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cute. Except your analogy is completely off the mark.

  58. DROP FUCKING DEAD GLICKMAN. by Fortyseven · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Christ, leave us the fuck alone, you greedy fucking little corporate twats. TV swapping does NOTHING to bother you, except exist.

    I'm tired of this shit. Really fucking tired of it. Just leave things as is. People watch it first-run when it airs, you sell your fucking commercials.

    Holy shit I can't even formulate fucking words to express how goddamn angry I am right now.

    "Every television series depends on other markets (such as) syndication and international sales to earn back the enormous investment required to produce the comedies and dramas we all enjoy," MPAA Chief Executive Officer Dan Glickman said in a statement. "Those markets are substantially hurt when that content is stolen."


    You fucking short-sighted asshole. By that logic selling series sets of shows on DVD must 'hurt syndication sales'. Bullshit. A set of 20+ HDTV Divx rips of a show taking up precious space on my hard drive isn't going to beat having a neat box DVD set of my favorite show with commentary and extras.

    And international sales? Bitch, if it wasn't for TV rips I wouldn't be watching getting into the seventh episode of the new Doctor Who. There's already a 2005 series DVD box set sale in me when it comes out, thanks to people making copies of the show for us to enjoy. I'm sure I'm not alone.

    You don't have to control every fucking little inch of your property with an iron fist. Sometimes the fans (remember what fans are?) can help bring in the cash better than whatever half-baked bullshit excuses you try to serve up to the media.

    ADAPT OR DIE.
    1. Re:DROP FUCKING DEAD GLICKMAN. by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      "By that logic selling series sets of shows on DVD must 'hurt syndication sales'. Bullshit."

      Perhaps that's why the DVD comes out after the syndicated airing. 'Syndication sales' means sales to TV networks for broadcast, not DVD sales to the public.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    2. Re:DROP FUCKING DEAD GLICKMAN. by boomfart · · Score: 1

      I hope downloading does hurt the international buyers ie my local stations then they may start to take notice and stop feeding us CRAP!. The Aussie tv networks screw with series regularly will drop a series midway thru only to continue months later. Hell I don't even know when the new simpsons episodes are aired with channel 10 showing 1 or 2 new episodes then a heap of repeats in the same time slot only to have the new episodes turn up at a new time. Too be continued often means this was episode 1 we will show episode 2 in a private sitting held in a locked filing cabinet in a room of the basement with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard. If the poor bleating networks got their act together and supplied a reliable quality service the downloading would not be an issue and could possibly be a good way of creating interest in new shows.

    3. Re:DROP FUCKING DEAD GLICKMAN. by Lysol · · Score: 1

      Man, I am SO with you on this! I was lookin forward to tonight's Alias and also the next ep from Dr. Who. Bums me out.

      I refuse to get a tv cuz most of the programming is shit. The net is a great way to get what I want and still not have feel like I'm a mindless blob during the process.

      Guess the hunt will go on for more .torrent sites.. Sigh..

    4. Re:DROP FUCKING DEAD GLICKMAN. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they don't. Shows like Angel and Buffy run in syndication right now, and they also sell on DVD. Which means somebody's paying to run them, either cash or barter.

    5. Re:DROP FUCKING DEAD GLICKMAN. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Syndication sales actually means sales to TV networks for broadcast AFTER the first-run broadcast.

    6. Re:DROP FUCKING DEAD GLICKMAN. by loraksus · · Score: 1

      You know, Ben would find it much easier to "drop fucking dead" if you shot ben with a 12 gauge slug.
      Ben's body armor, if he had any, wouldn't help Ben either.
      Throw down $300 for a semi auto 12 gauge and $10 for a box of 5 3" slugs and go help Ben.
      I'm guessing Ben's successor might be a little more careful and might tone it down with the lawsuits, if not, a $200 rifle can be used. Again, body armor or ballistic glass doesn't do much against that that kind of round.
      http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product _id=3138424

      Just uhh... a thought.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    7. Re:DROP FUCKING DEAD GLICKMAN. by rhizome · · Score: 1

      You don't have to control every fucking little inch of your property with an iron fist.

      Yes he does. I bet he would get fired if he didn't. If you sold fear insurance, it would be in your best interest to keep telling people the sky is falling. This is what he does, and he sings for his supper.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    8. Re:DROP FUCKING DEAD GLICKMAN. by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Hell I don't even know when the new simpsons episodes are aired ...

      Consider yourself lucky.

    9. Re:DROP FUCKING DEAD GLICKMAN. by Kvan · · Score: 1

      I'm entirely with you, especially on international sales. I own at least seven full season DVD box sets which are series I would've never even watched one episode of, were it not for having been able to download them and check them out. Give me a way to pay for the downloads, and I'll pay for those and for a set of higher-quality DVDs. There is a win/win for the studios here, if they'd only open their fucking eyes!

      --

      "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
      - 'K' in Men in Black.

    10. Re:DROP FUCKING DEAD GLICKMAN. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed shitty shittinghole. I live in europe, and watch some tv series that are not broadcasted here. You must be happy that i admire your television making skills by watching them, their are no dvd's of certain programs and if there were any i won't buy them.

    11. Re:DROP FUCKING DEAD GLICKMAN. by PenguinBoyDave · · Score: 1

      I agree with you...your points are well taken. However, I wish people would not post with all sorts of four-letter words. I have a lot of students that I would like to refer here for some great info, but the last time I did that the parents had my butt because of the excessive amount of f-bombs, etc.

      Again, I agree with you. I just wish we, as a whole, could tone it down a little.

      --
      I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
  59. Sites sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The six sites sued Thursday include ShunTV, Zonatracker, Btefnet, Scifi-Classics, CDDVDHeaven and Bragginrights.

    ShunTV posted this copy of the MPAA press release (pdf) and says they are down for good.

    Btefnet is still up at the moment, but there is no official response on the main page so maybe they just haven't gotten around to shutting down yet.

  60. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point

  61. MOD PARENT UP! by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

    I like the cut of his jib.

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  62. Making tv legit to download like soapcity.com by Starbreeze · · Score: 1

    The MPAA is going about this all wrong. They are going to alienate everyone that they haven't already. I can understand going after people who pirate movies, but it's just as easy to pay money to see the movie/buy the dvd. Most TV shows aren't available for purchase immediately, the DVD releases are seasons behind. They're not going to stop people from archiving the shows, because with TiVo Home Media option, I can dump them to my PC and burn to DVD.

    They could make a KILLING by following the business model of soapcity.com, where it breaks down to 50 cents an episode. (Granted, it's a subscription model for $10/mo, or like $3/episode, but that's a damn good deal if you don't have access to a television.)

    They use the Microsoft WMP DRM (last I checked) and the download license expires after 30 days. The downloads are available immediately after the episode finishes airing on the west coast, so no one can see it early. And there's no advertisements in the episode.

    1. Re:Making tv legit to download like soapcity.com by HillaryWBush · · Score: 1

      The MPAA produce absolutely nothing. Nothing. Nothing. They're pure financial parasites. Why should they act with taste? What do they have to gain or lose?

    2. Re:Making tv legit to download like soapcity.com by Starbreeze · · Score: 1

      You're right. But their customers... the television/movie studios have reputations and customers to gain/lose. Granted, it's a huge enough industry, we probably can't make a dent in it by boycotting or whatnot.

  63. TiVo Sucks... by John+Seminal · · Score: 0, Troll
    I don't understand why smart people would buy a TiVo??

    A VCR lets you keep the tapes, you can't take any content off a TiVo. Once you run out of room, you have to delete the show. And you can't record and skip commercials. With a VCR you can pause during commercials.

    It is too bad the SVHS did not catch on. Near DVD like quality, surround sound, better than what VHS is. Plus, if you want to loan a tape to a friend, you can.

    I'll give one more example of why TiVo sucks. I was going to work late one friday night, and called a friend of mine to record a show. He said he only had a TiVo, but would record it. He was leaving saturday morning to go home for the weekend. If he had a tape, I could have stopped to pick it up. But TiVo requires I be in his house to see it.

    TiVo is taking away your choices, your rights. As content goes from analog to digital, there will be more content encrypted. TiVo will side with the producers, to get the ability to save this content. Before, with VHS, everything was standard, the producers could not get away with it.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:TiVo Sucks... by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 4, Informative
      Clearly, you don't have a tivo or you're just trolling. I'll assume the former.

      A VCR lets you keep the tapes, you can't take any content off a TiVo. Once you run out of room, you have to delete the show. And you can't record and skip commercials. With a VCR you can pause during commercials.

      A) you absolutely can skip commercials with tivo, and I'll bet you head-to-head I can skip my commercials faster and more acurrately. B) you can transfer files off your tivo to your computer/portable media device C) you can burn them to a DVD if you so choose D) your friend could give you said DVD as easily as a tape if he didn't think you were such a know-it-all dick.

      -truth

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    2. Re:TiVo Sucks... by demaria · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Tivo specifically, but my time warner DVR has a "Copy to VCR" option. DVR is great for short term storage and time shifting. Keep tapes around for long term and legacy videos. Much better than dealing with tapes, as even at the lowest quality, you can only fit 6 hours on a standard tape. I sometimes record more than six hours overnight.

    3. Re:TiVo Sucks... by Balthisar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Huh? I'm a smart person with a TiVo. Video extraction is no problem. My 120 GB drive is only ever half full. I'm working out of the country right now, so every trip home means dumping my TiVo into my PowerBook so I can take it on the road.

      Additionally, I can access my TiVo from my job site. I haven't installed the spooler yet, but I can, and get my TiVo down in Mexico. This is bandwidth prohibitive though. If I had more time, I could have my PowerMac serve as an intermediary, get the TiVo video, and stream it to me in Mexico in a compressed format. But as I'm not home long enough to get it working, it's my fault (not Tivo's) that it's not doing it yet.

      Also, being in Mexico, I've started to download some things that I don't get down here. Battlestar Galactica comes to mind. I've always avoided the SciFi channel because every time I turn it on its about those damn big worms (Tremors the series). If I'd NOT pirated Battlestar Galactica, then SciFi'd never get a chance from me. Now they have a viewer (once I'm back home, that is).

      Finally, I look for Good Eats as soon as it's out. Can't wait to copy that one off the TiVo -- I want it right away.

      --
      --Jim (me)
    4. Re:TiVo Sucks... by technomancerX · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A VCR lets you keep the tapes, you can't take any content off a TiVo. Once you run out of room, you have to delete the show. And you can't record and skip commercials. With a VCR you can pause during commercials.

      My PC full of shows off the TiVo seems to prove you wrong. Granted it sucks that playback of .TiVo files only works on Windows at the moment, but I have a gaming box so it's not a big deal. Next step is decoding them to normal mpeg2 and throwing them on a RAID array in my basement. That will allow me to share the storage and play back the shows on any of the machines on my network, including a box hooked up to the tv.

      I'm actually using Firefox to download shows, since TiVoToGo doesn't support the TiVo and PC being on different subnets. The TiVos have a built-in web server that lets you access the now playing list.

      You can also fast forward through commercials at up to triple speed (yes the same as on a VCR), or edit them out once the files are on the PC. Pausing live tv shows is also a bonus.

      Also, a VCR won't automatically track when a show is on and record episodes you haven't already recorded. I'm currently collecting a number of series by recording them then archiving them on my PC. Because it's a subscription and it tracks what it's recorded in that subscription, it only tapes an episode once, even if I delete that episode off the TiVo.

      I'll give one more example of why TiVo sucks. I was going to work late one friday night, and called a friend of mine to record a show. He said he only had a TiVo, but would record it. He was leaving saturday morning to go home for the weekend. If he had a tape, I could have stopped to pick it up. But TiVo requires I be in his house to see it.

      You can burn archived shows from the PC to a DVD using Sonic MyDVD. So if your friend had a network and some software he could have given you a DVD to take home and watch.

      --
      .technomancer
    5. Re:TiVo Sucks... by topham · · Score: 1


      Smart people don't have huge collections of VHS tapes they will never watch again.

      I don't archive shows, I watch them. Typically, only once. Tivo does that and it does it well.

      But, since I have version 7.x on my Tivo I can argue anyway, because I can download any recorded program off the tivo without difficulty.

      Currently there are some technicaly issues with converting Tivo content to a DVD (it has to Transcode, which takes a considerable amount of time) but if I can fix a sound issue I will have a method that takes a show, once downloaded from the Tivo, and spits out a working, regular DVD in under 1hr. Not perfect, but well worth the effort for that one show out of 50 I might actually want to keep.

    6. Re:TiVo Sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just think, if you bought a ReplayTV you could have done this 5 years ago, without encryption, and across subnets. Man, what a concept.

    7. Re:TiVo Sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you troll. Informative?! Slay the moderator!

    8. Re:TiVo Sucks... by hopey · · Score: 1

      You can automatically cut commercials off in VDR with noad . You can have web based user interface and autotimer by using vdradmin. Other benefits of VDR are for example DVD plugin, mp3 plugin and mplayer plugin, which makes VDR able to play almost any media with single remote. If there is some feature missing, it will be developed and features won't be hindered for whatever reason in future. Can same be said about Tivo?

    9. Re:TiVo Sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There *are* DVRs on the market which provide the ability to swap recorded tv images with another user....

    10. Re:TiVo Sucks... by Laebshade · · Score: 1

      technomancerX, this might help you: Convert TiVo to DivX.

    11. Re:TiVo Sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just build a tivo. Then you can do what you want with the files and you don't have to pay a fee. i know 2 people that have done it and i am looking into doing it myself also. Just buy one of thsoe cheap desktops from walmart or somewhere and set up linux and mythtv.

  64. Are you kidding? by TubeSteak · · Score: 0, Troll
    Gilmore Girls Fucking Suck!

    The O.C. is where its at
    Welcome to The O.C. Bitch.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  65. Leave in the commercials! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I am not home, I want to see the episodes that I missed while I was gone, so I download the missed shows via a .torrent as it beats leaving my comp on to record it. If those filesharers would leave the commercials in the video, we wouldn't have a problem, legally, in downloading the program.

  66. BtEFnet & ShunTV DEAD - Two Down, 4 to Go by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Informative
    I only knew of btefnet
    The six sites sued Thursday include ShunTV, Zonatracker, Btefnet, Scifi-Classics, CDDVDHeaven and Bragginrights.
    Sorry, BTEFNET is down for maintenance. Please try again later.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:BtEFnet & ShunTV DEAD - Two Down, 4 to Go by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 1

      Yikes! It's Black Frickin Thursday! (or Friday... depending on your place on the globe)

      --
      "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
    2. Re:BtEFnet & ShunTV DEAD - Two Down, 4 to Go by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Its now back to the default "This domain has just been registered for one of our customers!"

      I believe I've seen that happen to them before... not that I go there regularly!

    3. Re:BtEFnet & ShunTV DEAD - Two Down, 4 to Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      btefnet still has it's trackers running...at least that's what I've heard ;-)

    4. Re:BtEFnet & ShunTV DEAD - Two Down, 4 to Go by GrassMunk · · Score: 1

      Its funny, cause whenever they shut all these sites down more come back up. And it gets so much publicity that people are like: "Wait, you mean i coulda been downloadin my TeeVee shows and watchin em on my schedule."

  67. I'll tell you when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When theiving little warez puppies like you stop stealing our work

    signed,

    The MPAA team

    1. Re:I'll tell you when by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's only stealing if you're not paying for it.

      Signed

      SJ0
      Cable TV subscriber

      --
      It's been a long time.
  68. Re:btefnet by HFShadow · · Score: 1

    Well its dead. http://www.btefnet.net/ Sorry, BTEFNET is down for maintenance. Please try again later.

  69. Let the Migration to Anonymous P2P Begin. by Famatra · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think these lawsuits will simply speed up the migration away from P2P to anonymous P2P. Many individuals believe strongly in the freedom of uncensorable speech and many also think that copyright (a monopoly on the free flow of information and a an barrier to promote artificial scarcity of knowledge erected by government enforced through threats of violence) needs to be reformed at best and removed totally at worse.

    The more promising anonymous p2p applications is I2P, its Wikipedia article here. It is a network layer and has a variety of tools including anonymous bittorrent [ducktorrent], [i2pbt], [azeureus plugin] (Azureus 2.3.0.0 has I2P code in its core as seen from their release notes), anonymous p2p search [i2phex], anonymous IRC [core], anonymous http [core], anonymous distributed content store like Freenet [Quartermaster or 'Q']. All it really needs is people to share their content (just put it in your files in automatic webpage directory) and anonymous newsgroups.

    There is also Freenet which is a useful backup to I2P until I2P develops a well working distributed content store (currently Quartermaster or the defunct Stasher fufill these rolls and are in the I2P core CVS). If you get Frost for Freenet there are a few distribution organisations there as well.

    1. Re:Let the Migration to Anonymous P2P Begin. by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please do not encourage people to use I2P right now. Come back in 3 or 4 months (when the network makes the transition to UDP) and I'll be glad to see posts like yours, but at the moment what you're doing is counter-productive. Please give the developers some room to wiggle, I know you're anxious but the network will just crash right now if too many people join.

    2. Re:Let the Migration to Anonymous P2P Begin. by Famatra · · Score: 1

      People have the right to know about it and, if necessary, fork the project or experiment on their own. Im my opinion that is why Freenet became to be in such a sad state of affairs, people were discouraged from forking it (at least one project I know of) and had a restrictive mentality with regards to how things are to be done. Hopefully I2P will not develop this mentality as well.

      As well, it is more than a little ironic that people try and stifle information about this project whose purpose is the free flow of information. If the develops are so concerned about people not knowing about it they will not participate with the 5th most active project on Sourceforge Azeureus, (I2P functionality is included and mentioned is in the release notes), and try to block the coverage currently on infoanarchy, and release only inhouse beta versions if the publically available copies are not meant for the public at large.

    3. Re:Let the Migration to Anonymous P2P Begin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your own advice about not informing people about I2P.

    4. Re:Let the Migration to Anonymous P2P Begin. by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

      Jesus H. Christ dude, get a fucking grip would you ? Jrandom has met EVERY bloody roadmap deadline to within 1 or 2 weeks, name me another project that has that consistancy. UDP is planned for this month but he's on vacation/moving. Remember, you didn't pay for any of this so please stop acting like you're the controlling shareholder. And please, nobody is trying to stifle your speech, nobody is stopping you from forking the codebase.. What the hell is wrong with you?

      Actually here's a better idea, why don't you sit down and spend some time writing the last bits of code for the udp network (most of the code is already written for you,) instead of complaining ?

      No, I didn't think so bitch.

    5. Re:Let the Migration to Anonymous P2P Begin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your own advice about not informing people about I2P.

    6. Re:Let the Migration to Anonymous P2P Begin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "nobody is stopping you from forking the codebase"

      Pretty hard to fork a project if we are not suppose to talk about it, eh? Or can you square that peg.

      "And please, nobody is trying to stifle your speech"

      Good, then I guess you've no problem with people telling others about the project.

  70. Actually, by Propaganda13 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The FCC said it was okay for Tivo users to record and share tv shows with 9 friends.

    1. Re:Actually, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      actually you need 9 friends first...

    2. Re:Actually, by hapoo · · Score: 0

      So by that logic, if you limit the people you send your TV show out to to 9, its perfectly legal? Most torrent programs don't send out to more than 4 or 5 people at a time. As long as you send to the same people i guess you have no problem.

    3. Re:Actually, by antdude · · Score: 1

      URL(s) for source(s)?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    4. Re:Actually, by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      According the the federal court, the FCC does not have the jurisdiction to regulate what people do with TV shows after they've received them.

      It applied to the broadcast flag, so I suspect it applies to Tivo as well.

    5. Re:Actually, by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      I would like to see (and it may already be a reality) a home made DVR like a Myth-TV box that has bittorrent or some type of P2P integrated into it.

      Have the box pull up an onscreen TV guide, click the program you want to see, like last weeks "Deadwood" that you missed because someone freaking called you during the show, and it goes out and finds it and downloads it for you.
      Yeah, I know it repeats again on the west channel and again on Monday night but you know what I am getting at.

      And if everyone else had a similar setup, it would be all but impossible to miss your favorite program.

      As for TV in general though, I find the only things I can tolerate are the educational channels, like the science channel, etc..
      Sometimes I like to watch Deadwood or the Sopranos or Carnival but that's it outside of educational TV..

      The Sci-Fi channel is so badly ate up with commercials that the have to put "To be continued" on screen before every commercial break. I mean like they run 150 hours of commercials per day. They got so bad that it turned me off to that channel forever. I just can't stand to watch it no matter what they are running.
      I'm bloody sick of the bitch with the nasty hair hawking the $150 diet pills or the retarded insurance commercials, or the f-ing onstar "push it real good" shit.. And the home loan ads.
      Or the "Bob's got a big prick!" pills.
      Or those screaming assholes, Billy Mays and Matthew Lesko. Those two assholes should get married to each other, they are true soul mates..

      God damn, TV is nothing but a huge parasitic freak show of scum bags trying to rob you blind and steal your soul. It's continual brainwashing.

      What gets me is that you have to PAY for this shit. I thought that's what commercials were for, so that TV could be free. At least it was when I was a kid, that was the theory then.

  71. Recording is OK, "sharing" is not by phiwum · · Score: 1

    Apparently it is OK to record TV as long as your aren't sharing it.

    Duh.

    It is a basic fair use right to record T.V. programs. Distributing them is copyright infringement.

    Note: as an expat, I regularly use a torrent site to watch American television. But I don't kid myself. What I'm doing is an infringement of copyright and, while there's a lot going wrong in copyright law, this ought to be an infringement.

    --
    Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    1. Re:Recording is OK, "sharing" is not by 9Nails · · Score: 1

      If over the air broadcasts come in to my home, without my asking, for free... I'm a criminal for redistributing that show even if it's still free?! Am I a criminal if I ask for an episode of a show that I missed? Somehow I don't see the legal ramifications and why this is such a heinous act. Now if I was distributing and receiving premium channels, I may understand.

      What am I supposed to do with the junk mail that is piled into my mail box? Am I a criminal for giving it to the trash man?! If my neighbor saved a coupon from their junk mail and offered it to me, is that a criminal act?

    2. Re:Recording is OK, "sharing" is not by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      From Fox's website:
      "8. Can I get tapes of FOX Network Primetime Shows sent to me?

      ANSWER:
      The FOX Network does not provide nor sell videos of any of shows, specials or movies that air on the Network.

      Our recommendation is to ask co-workers, friends, family and neighbors for anyone who may have taped off-the-air the show you are looking for.

      "

      would someone explain how the fuck they can essentially condone this via analog forms, but not via digital forms? the law makes no distinction...

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    3. Re:Recording is OK, "sharing" is not by phiwum · · Score: 1

      If over the air broadcasts come in to my home, without my asking, for free... I'm a criminal for redistributing that show even if it's still free?!

      I don't know if you're a criminal, but you're certainly infringing the copyright. Cost doesn't really have much to do with whether it's an infringement or not.

      What am I supposed to do with the junk mail that is piled into my mail box? Am I a criminal for giving it to the trash man?!

      You have the right to give away your copy of a text, I reckon. You can buy a book and give it as a gift. You can't make copies of the book and distribute those.

      In other words, I don't think your reductio works.

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    4. Re:Recording is OK, "sharing" is not by phiwum · · Score: 1

      would someone explain how the fuck they can essentially condone this via analog forms, but not via digital forms? the law makes no distinction...

      I have to agree that this seems a bit contradictory, but they don't say "ask friends to make a copy of their copied show." I assume they mean "ask to borrow a copy." I don't know, but it may be considered fair use to make a single copy and loan it out --- or maybe not.

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
  72. Blame Kevin Rose by thetr0n · · Score: 0

    Attack of the shows hosts Kevin Rose and David Prager (He wrote the article. The two kevins just presented it) had a segment on " RSS feeds to download you favorite Tv shows using BT" the episode orignally aired on : 5/5/2005 was broadcasted to something like 13 million homes. Now MPAA announces they are going after the Bitorrent TV distro sites a week later when Kevin Blurted how "It's cool to download" to all the 13 year olds that watch G4 However both Kevin agreed on this would be the carm before the storm. But some thing you shoulding openly say on TV station that goes out to a large audience

  73. TV On Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the problem with the MPAA? They have the mean to distribute TV shows which you can watch whenever you want. I have digital cable with Rogers and I do have some TV shows available freely on demand. I would not mind paying something like $1.99 to watch the show I forgot to record.

    Also I don't see their point. I don't think I'm "stealing" their precious shows since I'm actually paying to get the channels on which theses shows are aired in the first place. I could understand their objections about people getting the shows without being subscribed to the network that originally aired them, but it's not the case since they are going after the site themself. This just proves that the TV medium is outdated and is in great need of improvement. What if TV would move to a more On-Demand format where you could subscribe to a TV series instead of a channel. And I bet under that model, producers would make more effort to produce shows of a better quality.

  74. Huh? by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. Movies != TV. WTF?

  75. Who remembers Stargate Atlantis Season Finale? by Bruha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And how many had to record it on a dvr only to find out that the movie went 5 minutes past what all schedules published for the movie. My tivo missed the end and I had to download it off the net and view the end on my PC.

    Personally I consider it fair use if I already have a copy of the content I obtained legaly but I'm using the internet to get it in a different format instead of paying for utilities to do it I just basically leech off someone elses work.

    Course back in the real napster days I had a lot of cd's of mine stolen so I used napster to restore my muisc collection. Subsequently the drive carrying all that music died a year later. Which lacking napster I just quit buying cd's.

    And a warning to the MPAA and RIAA in the last few years I have severly cut back my cd/dvd purchases. You have put out nothing but crap lately. Hell last night I made the mistake of renting that damn steve zizou life aquatic movie. If there was any part of that that was interesting it must of been after the first 45 minutes I suffered and gave up on it being anything..

    I guess if I want to be entertained I'll just pirate your movie trailers. All the good parts are usually in there anyways.

  76. What if you live in a bum country.. by daverabbitz · · Score: 0

    That doesn't get all the shitty US show's I hate watching but d/load anyway. I mean what are the chances of New Zealand ever getting American Dad or the next season of Family Guy, or that shitty show numb3rs with all the stupid phony maths, I mean I should be able to watch all the same shitty crap that americans get to watch.

    --
    What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
  77. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..when I was growing up, mommy always told me to share.

  78. moderators suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent is humerous and true. too many tight asses around here.

  79. That's what you get . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . for being such a karma whorin' BIOTCH

  80. HI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you should learn the difference between uploading and downloading before you get on the internets.

  81. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Damn, it was the best site. I loved the calendar of shows with their episode titles and the fast turnaround.

    Yo, MPAA, I downloaded the entire series of The Shield and do you know what? I bought the DVDs, all three seasons that are out. I downloaded Dead Like Me and guess what? I bought the DVDs. I've downloaded dozens of shows and movies, liked what I saw and bought the DVDs as my permanent copy.

    I don't think I'm alone in this either.

  82. True Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About five episodes into the season I watched half of a West Wing episode and really enjoyed it. Knowing where to get Bit Torrent files of the show I went out and downloaded the previous four episodes and was up to speed for the season.

    This said, if I had not downloaded the previous four episodes I would NOT have watched every minute of the rest of the season.

    Also, I am a die hard 24 fan. I watch every episode start to finish commericial and all but with no VCR or TIVO I missed two episodes this season. However, my friend BTEFNet was able to provide me a pointer to shares of the file which I downloaded and watched. Personally, I do not care where I get the damn episode from but if it goes by somebody at that point has wasted an opportunity.

    Whether it was sampling new shows, catching up in a season, or just watching an episode I missed I do NOT CARE where I get it from as long as I get it. You a**holes at the MPAA get it through your head TV is about eyeballs and attentiveness. I pay attention, I know President Palmer pitches for All-State and the "swoop and swap" and All-State's stand so damnit don't cut me OFF!!!!!

  83. Is "Commercial-free" the problem? by Rai · · Score: 1

    I don't have cable. I'm a college student so I can't afford it (or DVDs of seasons.) There are a couple of shows I like to keep up with ("The Shield" is one) so I download weekly torrents to watch it. I don't keep the episodes. After I watch them, I delete the files (yes, I REALLY do. I rarely watch an episode of anything more than once.) So the only way I'm really "stealing" is because the video files are commercial-free, right? If the commercials were left in the files and I keep deleting them after I watch them once, is that still technically illegal?

    I wish more TV networks made their shows available for download or stream. They could air the commercials like normal and still get their ad-revenue. Or do they all have some kind of agreement to prevent viewers from bypassing the cable companies and having direct access to the shows?

  84. To any MPAA executives out there listening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you offer torrents online for a fee, I would be willing to pay for them.

    How about you bypass the fees you're paying Comcast and other cable companies for the on-demand programming, and just charge us a small fee to download shows whenever we want? You could even just offer last week's shows. If we really like a show, we watch it when it comes on TV. Otherwise, we can download it later for a small fee ($2-$5, depending on the show?).

    This way, you can also get viewers in other countries, or those who don't have cable or satellite for some reason.

  85. Re:btefnet by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

    If you live close enough to a large Canadian city across the border, you might be able to pick up the local CBC TV broadcast (i.e. antenna reception). It airs Tuesdays at 8.

    That said, the situation royally sucks, no question.

  86. Some legal questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a question: why is it illegal to download recorded broadcasts? The recording of a backup copy is legal, so I guess it must be the act of giving it to someone else. Distribution is the key here right? But surely the broadcast was public in the first place, so what's the difference in changing the manner and time at which you watch a show?

    Thinking further, you could concievably claim monetary loss because the advertisements will have been removed. But the only time those specific adverts would be shown was around and in between the first broadcast, and the advertisers would have to pay extra for subsequent showings, so the TV company aren't required to distribute adverts any time except the first showing.

    Another obvious question, why do we have to pay for broadcasts that are already easily picked up from the air? Surely if we're getting them regardless of whether we want them or not we should be able to do whatever we want with them. What is it about a piece of wire and a braun tube that makes it illegal?

    Lots of (perhaps stupid) legal questions, but it's something i've been wondering ever since I started picking up recorded anime.

  87. I have to wonder by Krystlih · · Score: 1

    I have to wonder, you can go into any backwater fleamarket and find lots of copyrighted material for sale. In Chinatown in NYC you walk on the streets and buy DVDs of movies that havent been released yet. But all of a sudden the internet hits and all of this illegal sharing becomes trackable. Now the *AA's have an idea on how bad this stuff is. Even if they win and illegal internet activity is put to a stop, I think there will still be thousands if not millions of people who participate in illegal copyright enfringement, it will just move to another place that cant be tracked so easily.

  88. Re:btefnet by Saeger · · Score: 1
    Ah crap... and I just posted about how I rely on BTEfnet for my TV torrents. Guess I should have RTFA.

    So... alternatives?

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  89. The Answer To This Is Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is an easy answer to this problem for the MPAA. Provide a legal alternative. If they want to stop people 'pirating' their televison shows, provide the public a way to download the shows and pay or provide advertising in exchange for the service. Until they do this, they show they are just trying to keep their monopoly secure. And until then, new websites providing the torrents will continue to pop up. Lets see how long they will play this proverbial version of 'whack-a-mole'.

  90. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as important are the trackers. Who owns/sets up the prq.to tracker that bt files are tracked by?

  91. No brainer for MPAA by Kenrod · · Score: 1

    This is a no brainer for the MPAA types, because of the popularity of DVD sets of TV shows, which make huge money because they require almost no investment.

    The HDTV shows I download and burn to disc are just as high quality as DVD (on a normal TV, anyway). I can burn 12 hours of video on one DVD and play them on my DivX compliant Philips DVP642.

    --
    Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    1. Re:No brainer for MPAA by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Most people I know who download TV also buy box sets as they become available. They generally download to tide them over until they are available. For most people a purchased item is something tangible which isn't true of a download.

  92. Re:btefnet by drgreg911 · · Score: 1

    It seems like we need to petition the BBC or something. They seem to "get it" more than most when it comes to embracing new technology rather than fighting it. I'd be more than happy to watch some flash ads while downloading episodes of Dr. Who. Hell, I'd even be willing to pay a couple bucks an episode.

  93. mod parent up by AHarrison · · Score: 1

    especially the part about the trailers. Insightful!

  94. Re:btefnet by fernd1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Somthing fishy is going on:

    Site says:
    This domain has just been registered for one of our customers!
    Domain registration and webhosting at best prices.
    Registry says:
    Registrant:
    oblivionx btefnet ....
    Domain servers in listed order:
    NS0.DEMANDRED.NET
    NS1.DEMANDRED.NET
    NS2.DEMANDRED.NET

    Registry for Demandred.net
    Registrant: ...
    Huntington Beach, California 92648
    United States ...
    Domain servers in listed order:
    NS0.DEMANDRED.NET
    NS1.DEMANDRED.NET
    NS2.DEMANDRED.NET

    But most telling...
    Subject of #bt on efnet

    * Now talking in #bt
    * Topic is 'BE PATIENT WHILE WE WORK THINGS OUT'

    Looks like server hop perhaps to avoid there ISP shutting them down.

  95. A-fucking-men by angrist · · Score: 1

    Amen, I'm also totally pissed.

    Many of these shows are broadcast freely over the airwave, let me repeat that ... some of these shows are broadcast for FREE. All I need to watch the O.C. or Lost or Law and Order or whatever is plug an antenna into the back of my TV. What the fuck are they talking about losing money?

    Or take Battlestar Galactica, I watched most of the episodes first run, but also downloaded the ones that I missed. Does that effect my decision to buy the DVDs? Nope, I was going to get them as soon as (within a few weeks) they were released. But now with this bullshit I'm not so sure.

  96. This is the end all solution by buzzdennis · · Score: 1

    So here's my proposal to you all. We keep complaining about alienation and the like from the big Hollywood execs. And yet all we can do is retreat to this wonderful message board. Here's the solution to it all. Let US alienate the execs. Let US show them that they aren't to screw with us. Let us set a week where we boycott television watching. Spread the word to everyone to not watch television. We can call it international no TV week. That'll screw them over real good. Screw the Nielson ratings, screw the MPAA and screw Wal-Mart for their killing of US jobs. Who's with me? Who's ready to join the revolution? We'll take on the broadcast flag as it heads to congress. We'll take on the Rich Ignorant Association of Anglos and the Menstrual Pansies Association of Ani. No TV. No TV. No TV. Chant with me. No TV. No TV. No TV.

    1. Re:This is the end all solution by Starbreeze · · Score: 1

      Uhm... There just *was* a TV Turnoff Week. April 25-May 1. Clearly, it didn't have much effect.

    2. Re:This is the end all solution by buzzdennis · · Score: 1

      Well let's do it for real this time.

    3. Re:This is the end all solution by fgl · · Score: 1

      I would, but I dont live in america...

      --
      Go Away! Not for Sale
    4. Re:This is the end all solution by AndreyF · · Score: 1

      Um, you're preaching to the wrong people.

      Personally, I literally haven't watched TV (not counting btefnet) for over a year. 99% of TV airtime is seen by people who don't know or care about copyright law.

    5. Re:This is the end all solution by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Why a week? Are we a bunch of weak-willed panty waists?

      I won't be watching TV again until this industry association has substantially cleaned up it's act. I won't be watching movies either.

      A week won't put the fear of death into them, it'll be just as impotent as a Bill O'Reilly boycott against France or Canada. Give up TV, since they obviously don't want you watching anyway, and use this resource we were previously using because we were too lazy to set up our VCRs to get material from people who actually want their material seen.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    6. Re:This is the end all solution by mr_null · · Score: 1

      darn, no mod points or you'd be +1 more...

      The only TV[*] I've seen in the last five years has been with friends/family at their homes, the ones that still watch it, that is. Drives my co-workers crazy I think, as it's an easy way to pass the time, talking about a TV show...

      If they go after all the TV torrents out there, I may not see the next seasons of SG1 and Atlantis, and consequently not buy the DVDs when they come out. I'll live though.

      Stopped buying music CDs a few years ago, now the only thing "new" I listen to is music I can get for free (and legal) from various sites like CTG.

      Stopped caring about movies, both in the theater and on DVD about six months ago.

      Quit MMORPGs for good when EA canceled EnB.

      An interesting side-effect that I can not 100% attribute, but I'm sure has played a roll is that I've lost 50 lbs in the last year, read more, and have had friends remark that I'm happier. (granted this could even be completly un-related to the afformentioned diatribe, but I'd like to think it helped)

      I had something more substantial and coherent to say, but damn it, I can't think right now. Need sleep first.

      [*] by this I mean TV with commercials actually broadcast over the wire, not something I've downloaded.

  97. What if I promise to watch the commercials? by splorp! · · Score: 1

    C'mon, cut us some slack! I'm FINALLY gonna get broadband! I wanna download!

    --
    Please don't humanize the morons around me. It makes me very uncomfortable.
    1. Re:What if I promise to watch the commercials? by AndreyF · · Score: 1

      Ha, no worried. If there's one community which has no lack of creativity, it's the one that'll figure out a way to infringe copyright.

  98. Mod parent up! by Burning1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Grandparent was litterally asking for it.

  99. Screw MPAA... Usenet baby... by draziw · · Score: 1

    So they want me to re-up with a usenet provider? No prob - back to newscene I go... I didn't renew since torrents were working so great, but I'll go right back to using usenet...

    [At home I have directtivo - but I travel a lot. I like to get shows, and watch them in my hotel room, or on flights, etc..]

    When RIAA started being asshats, I just about stopped buying CDs. (I still sometimes buy them now as gifts - but almost never for myself anymore). Maybe for MPAA I'll watch fewer movies - but with how few good ones come out, I don't think anyone will notice a few lost ticket sales a year...

  100. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You spelled 'the' wrong.

  101. No more content! by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

    Let's say for example in the future it made no sense whatsoever to sell music, TV shows, movies, games, books, or any other form of content because it would be pirated the very instant it got out by everyone.

    Entertainment would then be reduced to free blogs and content on websites (plus any free content someone happens to make), and the only free books would be limited to universities and government funded institutions.

    Heck, we may not only revive folk music, but also wean ourselves off the idiot box yet!

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:No more content! by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Homestar Runner is kinda funny.

    2. Re:No more content! by phurley · · Score: 1

      But you are making all sorts of invalid assumptions. True distribution will change, but people are more than willing to pay for content. Most people pay good money for their cable subscription -- if p2p kills off TV networks, what are the chances of new content models being formed?

      I can image subscription sites for shows, which release a new episode every X days as a function of the number of subscribers. This would totally side step the p2p "problem" as they have their profits set. To extend their profits they could still sell DVD box sets with extras (or use those as incentives for subscribers).

      Will the nature of content change? Probably, but I believe you have it reversed. As content distribution costs become lower and lower, current methods of control will fail, and new methods will expand. A site like tvtome, will become a new form of content aggregator providing ads and links to new shows as they become available. There will be more content of a more diverse nature as the market expands to find niche groups, rather than providing "median" content.

      Will there be fewer people who make 500k+ per episode -- yes. And much of the content will be crap (filtering and rating will be a new business opportunity). But people are willing to pay for content -- but p2p has invalidated the old business model. No amount of US laws will stop off shore servers from providing the same "services" and then what happens?

      --
      Home Automation & Linux -- now I know I'm a geek
  102. Re:btefnet by IANAAC · · Score: 1
    Then why would the page say this:

    This domain has just been registered for one of our customers! Domain registration and webhosting at best prices.

  103. tax us instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not just impose a $3 tax per internet user and be done with it. I would pay $3 a month to download as much as I want and not be worried about the MPAA and gang. They get the extra $$ from taxes (that will cover there supposed loss) and we are free. Sure people will bitch about the tax, but face it, most of us would find this a fair trade.

  104. Camera phone by tepples · · Score: 1

    So, if I walk in the Louvre and help myself to whatever takes my fancy, I'm not stealing the work of great masters, right? I mean, it's not like I can buy any of the works in the museum shop

    The proper analogy of "stealing" copies in a museum is photography of the exhibits. Would discreet photography without flash even be noticed? Or do they ban mobile phones in major museums?

    1. Re:Camera phone by trime · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point. The parent said that if you can't buy something then you're free to take it. I'm not trying to argue theft/infringment here, but trying to point out that it's fundamentally wrong with his/her line of thinking

    2. Re:Camera phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The post you reply so poorly to initially comments on Canadian ruling of law in the sovereign territory it is enforced in. In principle it is not so simple- rather the concept that you miss so egregiously is that if a service is offered for purchase in an area, broadcast or transmitted outside of that area due to error but without financial cost as the market of the item has not been focused on in that area that the acquisition and use or consumption of the item put into that area, by those who are able to do so in that area is legal as it is not offered in any form for purchase despite its availability in that area.

  105. Re:btefnet by Aeiri · · Score: 1

    If you live close enough to a large Canadian city across the border, you might be able to pick up the local CBC TV broadcast (i.e. antenna reception). It airs Tuesdays at 8.

    Nope, unfortunately, I live about 8 hours away from the border.

    It's such an awesome show though...

  106. Where you been, Ken? by russotto · · Score: 1

    "Apparently it is OK to record TV as long as your aren't sharing it."

    Uhh, no. If you were to ask the MPAA, they might say something like

    "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.".

    Why?

    "However, if you are an advertiser who has paid $280,000 a minute to advertise, he feels a very large pain in his stomach as well as in his checkbook because it destroys the reason for free television, the erasure, the blotting out, the fast forwarding..."

    Of course, the MPAA famously lost that battle. But they never gave up; expect Betamax to be overturned within the year.

    1. Re:Where you been, Ken? by gooman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...expect Betamax to be overturned within the year.

      I watch less TV than ever now, and yet it really bothers me the idea of losing the ability to time-shift my viewing. My response will probably be to simply no longer watch anything.

      That has been my response to the RIAA. What used to be a 4-6 CD a month habit is now reduced to zero. Going on 3 years now. And no, I don't p2p anything. I simply stopped acquiring new music. I listen to the radio and see live stuff, thats it.
      It really was a bit of an adjustment, but after a short time, I realized I simply can't support such behavior and now I'd much rather keep my money.

      The same with TV and mainstream movies for the most part. I don't pretend I'm some sort of elitist. It is just that everything is so overtly commercial, and it becomes even more obvious when you step back and stop participating.

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    2. Re:Where you been, Ken? by mjkjedi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What used to be a 4-6 CD a month habit is now reduced to zero. Going on 3 years now. And no, I don't p2p anything. I simply stopped acquiring new music. I listen to the radio and see live stuff, thats it.

      RIAA music may be nearly everywhere, but not all labels are aligned with them. You can still buy music from non-RIAA labels with a clean conscience. It's what I do.

  107. ahhh by didgyd · · Score: 1

    So this is what happened to BTEFNET earlier tonight when I was refreshing it.. it seems anything remotely connected with bittorrent downloads seems to get targeted for shutdown within a few months.. I'm sure they will start going after private tracker sites as well soon.

  108. troll? by thedustbustr · · Score: 1

    That made me laugh out loud.

    --
    This sig is false.
  109. Internet distribution as backup to P/DVR... by TheRealStyro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I rarely use the Internet distribution channel as a backup to my P/DVR. Occasionally I'll forget to check settings and recordings won't have proper padding, so front/back may be clipped. Also, the VCR tape may break and cause the loss of the entire night. The Internet is also useful for the rare instance that an affiliate refuses to carry content and/or has technical issues.

    For example, the show Family Guy recently went back on the air. The local Fox affiliate had technical issues that blocked analog transmission. DirecTV was also out since they were forced into only keeping the local feed (they should carry local and national feeds to the networks). Through Internet distribution, I was able to watch the show (the local affiliate eventually re-broadcast with network approval).

    The networks need to allow free or cheap downloads of aired shows. At least until a DVD set is released. Start offering free or cheap downloads and it will shut down some of these channels. The offerings will also bring greater validity to legal cases (because what is so wrong with distributing aired shows to others that may enjoy it?).

    --
  110. When the idea has only one expression... by tepples · · Score: 1

    this is the problem slashbots have understanding copyright. It's not locking up an idea for ever, it's granting the sole right of copying, distribution, performance, public display, and/or making derivatives or an original expression of an idea.

    Then what happens if a given idea can be expressed only one way, as is allegedly the case in music (ObTopic: such as TV show theme songs)? It could get painful.

    Ford is not granted the sole right to make cars.

    At one point, one company did have a government-granted exclusive right to make and sell internal combustion engines. But unlike patents, copyrights do not expire.

    1. Re:When the idea has only one expression... by stubear · · Score: 1

      "copyrights do not expire."

      Bull fucking shit. I am so sick and fucking tired of reading this crap on /. Not only do copyrights expire, there is a wealth of public domain intellectual property I'm sure Larry Lessig would rather you sooner forget. Not only that but more intellectual property is placed into the public domain every day, despite what the EFF has brainwashed you to think. The only aberration that has occurred due to the Sonny Bono copyright act is the rate at which some new intellectual property is going to enter into the public domain. This, however, is not easily measured because it assumes that an equal amount of intellectual property is created every year. The Supreme Court of the US may have handed the RIAA and MPAA a victory but it will be short lived. Congress is going to have a very difficult time getting any further copyright extensions past the Supreme Court. Therefore life of author plus 75 is about all you're going to get if you're a creator of intellectual property, enjoy it while you can.

    2. Re:When the idea has only one expression... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Not only that but more intellectual property is placed into the public domain every day, despite what the EFF has brainwashed you to think.

      By "intellectual property", you mean patents, right? As I understand the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, copyrights won't start expiring again in the United States until 2019, after peak oil, and copyrights on TV shows (the subject of the article) won't start expiring until at least 2040. If this is incorrect, please explain.

    3. Re:When the idea has only one expression... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Congress is going to have a very difficult time getting any further copyright extensions past the Supreme Court.

      Statements like that thoroughly discredit any authority on the subject that you might pretend to. You dis Lessig, but you are apparently unaware of the ruling of the court in Eldred. In essence, the court said that setting the term of copyright is ENTIRELY a legislative function. Unless the legislature formerly admits to making copyright indefinite, the court believes there is no problem. Literally, "forever minus one day" as Valenti once said while creaming his jeans, is fine by them.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:When the idea has only one expression... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the latest public domain works are from the 19th century, and nothing new will enter for decades.

      Wait...I just realized...
      Therefore life of author plus 75 is about all you're going to get if you're a creator of intellectual property, enjoy it while you can.

      Your use of irony to point out that copyright doesn't expire in any rational sense of the word is duly noted.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  111. Re:btefnet by Rob+Feature · · Score: 1

    It looks like btefnet is down - hopefully not for good...

    --
    I'm all messed up on cough syrup now so just, like, nevermind.
  112. What's next? by parasonic · · Score: 0

    What about porn sites?

  113. This blows. by Alien+Venom · · Score: 1

    This really blows because people, like me, use a method of downloading TV shows via BitTorrent called broadcatching. I'm sure there are tons of people like me whose intention is not to do any harm to that particular show/network. I prefer downloading of TV shows because I cannot watch them when they air (usually). Though better solutions (Tivo) might exist, it is still super convenient for me to download TV shows (acutally my computer does it for me) and to watch them on the computer. Or I can quickly transfer them to my laptop and bring it to work/school with me. I can understand why the RIAA/MPAA might have a problem with people downloading music/movies, but it's television and it's broadcast all over the world -- for FREE. This is indeed another "scare" tactic. What's next, suing people for using BitTorrent all together? What about HTTP downloading? What about FTP? I can download my "warez" from those protocols too.

  114. MPAA and DVDs by SparksMcGee · · Score: 1

    I'm generally inclined to agree with the people who say that the MPAA is less evil than the RIAA. They've been less draconian, their product is undeniably of generally higher quality, and they actually release things for a reasonable cost relative to production values. Certain studios (I'm looking at you, Paramount!), however, are reaching the tipping point with forced adverts on DVD. Believe it or not, I am not interested in seeing previews I can't skip for a movie coming out in six months. Odds are I won't watch the movie anyway, but lo and behold I still get the forced ad content every bloody time I boot up the movie. One of the biggest reliefs about digital media was that at first studios didn't put all those bs previews on DVD like they did with VHS, they appeared to have learned their lesson. To those studios that are actually preserving the DVD as a useful medium--congratulations, I believe in your business model and am willing to purchase your product. To those that are ensuring I see previews for "The Matrxi: Revolutions" well into 2009, I can only say that you should straighten up and fly right or expect me to consider your product flawed and unworth purchasing.

  115. Why isn't there streaming cable channels? by Proc6 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I would pay $30 a month for just streaming Comdey Central where I refuse to pay $50 a month to Mediacom for Comedy Central and 30 other steaming piles of shit channels.

    Surely there's a way for "channels" to sell themselves on their website as well as part of a cable package?

    --

    I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

  116. Re:btefnet by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Sadly, btefnet is on the list. Where will I get The Daily Show and Dr. Who if they go down?

    Just as long as they don't take MySpleen. Please god, don't let them take MySpleen. I need MySpleen to live!

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  117. Dictionaries by tepples · · Score: 1

    And for that matter, let's stop using the word "piracy". At least as it applies to copyright infringment. I cannot believe that out of dictionaries full of English words we can't find a couple of other words to use.

    It's surprising how many dictionaries now have, as the first two definitions of "piracy", some wording of the following:

    piracy n. 1. Robbery committed at sea or on an airplane. 2. Infringement of copyright.

    Besides, if we let the MPAA/RIAA define our lexicon

    "Piracy" for infringement has been in common use nearly since the copyprivilege was invented in 1710.

    we're halfway to losing the battle for copyright already.

    I've tried to introduce the term "copyprivilege", which IMHO better reflects the constitutional status of Title 17 exclusive rights compared to that of the free press. The Congress has power to choose whether to grant exclusive rights in works of authorship, but it must uphold freedom of the press.

    1. Re:Dictionaries by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the law (as I last read it last year) still defines true piracy as copyright infringement on a massive scale with intent to profit. Granted, there's still that outrageous $250,000 per infringement civil penalty ... but the law does distinguish between criminal piracy and simple copyright infringement. The problem, as I understand it, is that copyright law never took into account modern telecommunications and the possibility that massive infringement could take place between individuals.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  118. Sunlight? People?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like I'll be...walking...talking to people...

    fuck that

  119. Remember that Harry Potter scene? by icedphoenix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, I don't think these guys get it. Anyone remember the latest Harry Potter book? Remember that part where Fred and George set off a multitude of fireworks in the school and Umbridge was forced to run around extingiushing them all? I believe what she tried to do at one time was stun one out of existence and it just ended up multiplying.

    So, imagine. MPAA and RIAA executives, whose collective IQ is about half that of a kid with Down Syndrome. They're Umbridge.

    Their goal: make torrent download sites obsolete.

    Take the RIAA . They succeeded in shutting down Napster and they rejoiced that it was the end of music swapping... or not. Napster died, Morpheus, Kazaa, WinMX, Gnutella, and Bittorrent rose to prominence and actually made the problem worse.

    So, the MPAA seems intent on killing Bittorrent. They managed to get to suprnova, Lokitorrents, and few other sites. The result? A plethora of suprnova clones that are alive and thriving.

    Do these organizations remind you of a dog that chases his own tail?

    It almost makes me want to stop teaching and go into business because if these executives have IQs of -4 and still manage to make millions, imagine what me with my IQ could accomplish.

    1. Re:Remember that Harry Potter scene? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Neighter Intelligence, or Money brings happyness.

      picture a Poor idiot, smiling to himself...

      Dosn't have to convice anyone of anything, dosn't worry about someone taking his money...

      I'm just saving up for a labotomy.

  120. Re:btefnet by kromozone · · Score: 1

    Probably because they are rapidly shifting the physical location/ownership of the server to a country with sensible laws. I don't see why all these sites aren't using the same host as PRQ, then this would all be a moot point.

  121. FEAR NOT! by gnovos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it's not on cable (i.e. broadcast via normal radio waves OR sattelite) and it's being broadcast in an area near ME, then you have nothing to worry about... I own the rights already, and I feely allow you to redistribute the content.

    You see my body has an EULA. In order to pass radio waves through it, you must agree to the EULA. This EULA states that you transfer the intellectual property rights to all your content (radio & teleivion are specified) to me for a perior of 347 years from the date of using my body as a transport medium.

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    1. Re:FEAR NOT! by rale,+the · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I'm sure the MPAA will be willing to stick you in a faraday cage, or alternatively, wrap you up into a giant ball of tinfoil.

  122. Download music off MTV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was disappointed that the new Xbox doesnt let you buy songs from MTV .. ie while a video is playing on MTV or some other channel u can press a button and purchase the song or video.

    Guess they decided not to have that feature when they realized MTV doesnt show music videos.

  123. Re:btefnet by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

    I downloaded all the new BSG episodes, all from btefnet. I also bought the DVD of the miniseries. This is a gigantic bummer.

  124. Looks like they forgot tvtorrents.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :D

  125. You show them who's boss! by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

    I hope the MPAA shuts down these evil bittorrent sites where I go to find episodes of the new Dr. Who and Call For Help 2.0. My downloading those two shows is depriving the MPAA of so much money.

    Except neither show is available in the USA, where I live.

    So the MPAA wants to prevent me from stealing shows that I can't watch any other way? What a bunch of jerks.

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  126. Re:btefnet by whidbey+island+geek · · Score: 2, Informative

    alt.binaries.drwho and/or alt.binaries.multimedia.scifi for the good doctor. alt.binaries.multimedia.comedy for your fake news. (Attn **AA, please continue to ignore the existence of the Usenet.)

    --
    Share and Enjoy! (tm)
  127. The TV industry does not understand it's users by compuniverse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The TV industry is used to being paid by their customers, which are the advertisers. This is a new thing - viewers wanting to buy programming directly. This must seem very painful for them, as if they stuff up then they have to deal with low sales and thus will have to produce quality product at a fair price in order to keep their revenue streaming in.

    1. Re:The TV industry does not understand it's users by slriv · · Score: 1

      There is also another aspect to this. They no longer pay nielsen's for ratings, and no telling who else for doing market research. downloading tv does cut out many middle men here, and you know what, I'm all for that.

      --
      All the worlds a stage, and I'm the guy running the lights...
  128. Re:what? sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can cup my balls. Any good with the shaft?

  129. Have you ever considered doing something else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    TeeVee is too easy. It's there, you turn it on, you watch. You get hoked on some product placement stuffed series, miss an episode, and the MAN wants to throw you in jail for glomming a copy.

    Is it really worth it. It's not like the material is all that creative. Hell, the book is ALWAYs better than some dimwitted, cloistered in hollwoody, leftist, who doen't know his hole from that ass over ther, could possibly portray by way of kicking kappy little electrons around.

    Read the book. Go rent a film. If you're poor, go to the $1 movie. If you're real poor, hang out at the couthouse. It's much more interesting than anything on TeeVee.

    Hell, you might even teach yourself LISP.

  130. I'm mad as hell about this! by Sj0 · · Score: 1

    ShunTV dealt almost(with a few notable exceptions) exclusively with documentaries and news programs. Suing them is, to me, just wrong.

    I'm not sure what the MPAA thinks it's going to accomplish, but as a paying customer(I pay over a thousand dollars for Cable TV, thank you very much, and the amount of money I spend on movies is non-trivial), this is the last straw. Shutting down suprnova was one thing(That was wholescale theft of movies, music, and more), but this isn't right. I will not be seeing the next star wars movie, nor Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, nor any one of the new movies coming out, nor will I buy any new copies of old favourites. If they're so worried about losing money because people downloading TV shows, then so be it: Now they're going to lose real money and real mindshare.

    My personal boycott of RIAA music(I refuse to even listen to it, lest I give the bastards mindshare) is now extended to the MPAA, and to all Cable TV, even the shows I really enjoy. Lord knows it's an ant vs. a behemoth, but at least I'll be able to sleep at night knowing that I'm not paying for lawsuits.

    So, are there any web-based independents out there who want their stuff seen? My viewing schedule just opened right up, and I'd love to see stuff done by someone who actually wants me to watch their stuff.

    --
    It's been a long time.
    1. Re:I'm mad as hell about this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atom Films (www.atomfilms.com) is free AFAIK with some great stuff on it.

  131. Use Usenet to distribute torrents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and with things like Azureus supporting distributed databases of torrent clients, it gets nice. Either that, or we start using FreeNet to distribute the torrents.

  132. bastards by EvilNecro · · Score: 1

    Yet more insanity. I tell you now, I pay $142 and change every month to Adelphia for cable and internet, and if I miss an episode of House, I'm gonna go find it and download it - I paid for the 'license' to watch the stuff they send to my house, period.

    First, the last time I checked, the airwaves belonged to the people. Second, whats my $142 for if it isn't a license to watch House? Third, fair use allows for time shifting, and thats really what these sites allow me to do.

    Another bullshit money grab, greedy corporate bastards.

  133. Canadian content regulation by tepples · · Score: 1

    In Canada, there is no way to get HBO legally.

    Your beef is with the CRTC (the Canadian FCC), not Time Warner. In Canada, all networks have to carry a minimum percentage of programming made in Canada. In order to offer HBO in Canada, Time Warner would have to split it into two channels and show Canadian-produced filler half the time on each channel.

    1. Re:Canadian content regulation by agraupe · · Score: 1

      I know, this is a law that has ruined many a great Canadian channel (just look at some of the Comedy network garbage). The point being, that just because someone uses bittorrent, does not mean that they are trying to be evil pirates. If I had another way to get HBO, I wouldn't bittorrent things... but until that time, I will.

  134. Re:btefnet by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

    EXACTLY!! I live in the US, I mean how the hell am I supposed to watch Dr. Who? Wait 5 or 6 years for the DVD box set to come out here?

    I agree with the bit about the Daily Show (I love it and I live in Europe, so downloading is the only option) but the complete first season of Dr. Who will be out on DVD this year. I don't know about North American release dates but I suppose you could always order from the UK if you don't mind R1 disks.

  135. Dr. Who???? by bill_kress · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I kinda got used to the new Dr Who! It's pretty good! How am I supposed to get it in America now? I guess eventually DVDs MIGHT go on sale, and they MIGHT be playable in American DVDs...

    You'd think the BBC could just open up all its content as bit torrents (I understand they have opened up quite a bit!) and just charge people to be able to decode the videos. Why not?

    1. Re:Dr. Who???? by Spad · · Score: 1

      Give them time. Currently quite a few of their regular shows, such as Newsnight (worth watching for Jeremy Paxman's interview technique alone) are available to watch off their site (admittedly as Real Media, but the player is at least spyware free these days).

      They've also just opened up large chunks of their API and are encouraging people to play around with and freely use their web content.

      It wouldn't suprise me at all if the Beeb were the first network to have all their shows available online (albeit probably restricted to UK users - at least at first).

    2. Re:Dr. Who???? by Danj2k · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You could always use the new Doctor Who RSS feed and get text commentary on what's happening...

      Not quite the same I guess...

      But anyway yeah, this is basically the reverse of the problem that affects UKers; we don't seem to get American shows until at least three or six months after they've been broadcast in the US. I've been following the demise of Enterprise using btefnet, but the same episodes won't appear on Sky One for at least another two or three months. I don't see that there's anything wrong with me downloading the episodes, since a) we pay our TV License fee and Sky Digital subscription and b) the episodes will be on TV here eventually. I'd be happy to pay a small fee to be able to legitimately download TV shows as they come out - as long as they don't put them in some lame DRM format like Windows Media.

    3. Re:Dr. Who???? by tankd0g · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't depend on the BBC to help you out, you think the MPAA is bad, the BBC has the right to barge into your house and take your VCR.

  136. Oh noes! We're letting Al Quaida download sitcoms! by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    If I have the right to digitally record TV shows, why doesn't someone ELSE have the right to record them FOR me?

    I mean, are we afraid that (omgbbq!) people who don't have this 'right' are getting ahold of the files? And who ARE these people that don't have these rights? Is this like making encryption software available to terrorists or something? Is there a 'no-export' list for TV shows now? Have we all been unknowingly making episodes of Friends available to Al Quaida?

    This keeps getting more and more ridiculous. It really does. Why even bother having television media in this country if we're apparently not allowed to watch it?

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  137. Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got a source for that claim?

    1. Re:Yeah? by Propaganda13 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, never checked back on this thread until now.
      http://news.com.com/FCC+lets+TiVo+users+share+show s/2100-1041_3-5296756.html

  138. Uh, yeah we uh, um a mission statement or somethin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I have all your money? I promise to use it wisely to better mankind/world/dog? Promise!

  139. #tvtorrents by sewagemaster · · Score: 1
    tvtorrents has been down for a couple of weeks already (and will not return)

    From the site:
    If you can donate to help with the pending settlement, please do so!
    1. Re:#tvtorrents by rm999 · · Score: 1

      Donating to a settlement? Why would anyone do that?!? I'll donate if it will go to a legal fund, but not to hand over to the bad guys

      ps. end it with a .com instead of a .tv

  140. Re:btefnet by s.fontinalis · · Score: 1

    If we used hexadecimal would it be 15 friends?

  141. Re:btefnet by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

    oops... that's supposed to say R2

  142. The world according to the MPAA by Carpet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love Sci-Fi, unfortunately I also live in a country where "sci-fi doesn't sell", and therefore suffers from lack of distributers. So in the world according to the MPAA:

    -I can't catch on TV, since no distributers are willing to sign it.
    -I can't catch it on DVD, since there are no localized releases.
    -I can't import it on DVD, since to do so would require me getting a multi-region DVD player, which is illegal according to the MPAA. (I could also buy a Region 1 DVD player, but it would also be illegal, since I'm viewing content not meant for my region).
    -I can't download it, due to some wacky reasoning that a non-existent local distributer is going to lose out on profits.

    So what's a man to do?

    1. Re:The world according to the MPAA by kindbud · · Score: 1

      So what's a man to do?

      Kill your TV.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
  143. But weaseling out of things is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what seperates man from the animals, except the weasel

  144. Why the MPAA gets away with it by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    The story above this one says: "Second Round of Serenity Screenings Sold Out."

    People just don't care what the MPAA does, as long as Hollywood keeps delivering the latest in digital explosion rendering technology.

  145. People download commercials, too by imuffin · · Score: 1

    I don't see what the big deal is. People watch shows on TV, people watch commercials on TV. People download shows from the internet, people watch commercials on the internet.

    Plus it must really confuse the people at TiVo when they track my usage stats and see that I fast forward through all the shows and only watch the commercials (to find the good ones for my site). Surely I cancel out several of you commercial-skipping fools.

  146. Re:btefnet by pestilence4hr · · Score: 1
    Where will I get The Daily Show and Dr. Who if they go down?

    Most of the Daily Show is available for free online from comedy central's website.
  147. from the MPAA press release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has more information than the news articles:
    (pdf warning)http://www.mpaa.org/MPAAPress/2005/2005_05 _12_BitTorrent.pdf
    from their page 2:

    "Since we began shutting these sites down, the time that it takes to download a file on BitTorrent has increased exponentially which means the experience of downloading copyrighted films and TV shows is not what it used to be," said Glickman. "We intend to make it even worse. Protecting the television industry is essential."

    Below is a list of the six BitTorrent sites being sued by the MPAA. Together, these sites facilitate the illegal swapping of copyrighted material to over 100,000 people daily.

    ShunTV [www.shuntv.net] ShunTV specializes in distributing recent television shows. It has around 10,000 registered users. A regular team of users (dubbed "TeamTV") appears to upload content on a daily basis as shows are broadcast. The site even includes a "Calendar" of television programs showing the date of broadcast and whether a copy is available on the server.

    Zonatracker [www.zonatracker.com] Zonatracker is mostly in Spanish and has over 2500 users. It offers hundreds of popular movies, including many movies still in theaters. The Zonatracker tracker is also used by another Spanish-language torrent site, Zonadivx.com.

    Btefnet [www.btefnet.net] This torrent site and the eight associated servers specialize in distributing television shows. The torrent site shows that there are over 48,000 registered users seeding files on the servers.

    Scifi-Classics [scifi-classics.net] This site is designed to distribute science fiction content. Torrents are posted in the forum section and tracked by the associated server. There are over 1600 registered users in the forum section. CDDVDHeaven [cddvdheaven.co.uk] This site has over 8000 registered users, and averaged over 1500 visits a day in March 2005 according to statistics posted on the site. It currently lists over 100 torrents for a variety of movies and televisions shows. The site profits by giving privileges to users who make monetary contributions to the site, allowing them faster downloading speeds without requiring them to upload torrents.

    Bragginrights [www.bragginrights.biz]Bragginrights has over 12,000 registered users and a wide variety of torrents, including those for films currently in theaters. It solicits donations to make money.

  148. Re:btefnet by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

    PRQ? You mean the tracker that's down 50% of the time? I can see why these other sites aren't using the same host... ;)

    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  149. H.264 = 50x more CPU time for 10% more quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really really really hope that the guys start ripping using the H.264 codec next season

    Yeah, that would be keen. Then only the people who can afford a dual Mac G5 or an umpteen gigahertz Pentium 4+HT will be able to watch downloaded TV. That's a much more effective way to kill TV episode downloading than lawsuits...

  150. Doctor Who by Zepalesque · · Score: 1

    Is a BBC production. MPAA is an american organization. Presumably the MPAA won't be policing this show? :)

    1. Re:Doctor Who by PigleT · · Score: 1

      Don't bank on it. I got a stupid email via my ISP just after Christmas, from the MPAA - with a Cc to fact-uk.org.uk. Now if that doesn't consitute breach of some data-protection act on an international scale ...

      --
      ~Tim
      --
      .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
      Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
  151. Remeber by Zepalesque · · Score: 1

    The MPAA is a nice front so you don't know who to be upset with. Here are the MPAA members:

    Buena Vista Pictures Distribution (The Walt Disney Company)
    Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.
    Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
    Paramount Pictures Corporation
    Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
    Universal City Studios LLLP
    Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

  152. Okay, let me get this straight... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Publically broadcasted signals, which according to the FCC, being not encrypted or protected, (much like someone living near you with a wide-open wireless connection, which is legal to use, since they're broadcasting for the public to see and use by definition if they don't secure the access point) is illegal to share?

    BS! If you receive a signal over the airwaves, and your device can receive it, it's fair game. At least, that's what my roommate did to fight the charge against him for "war-driving" (which can't be true, the unsecured wireless access points were unsecured, non-password protected, and unencrypted) and the exact same argument was used. If you don't encrypt or protect a signal, then anyone's free to use the signal as they see fit, whether recording it, or rebroadcasting it, especially from Publically Funded Stations Like This One. If you don't protect what you broadcast, technically you can't complain when someone exploits it. My roommate's case may be an isolated one, but it still happened.

    Also, what right does a company like the MPAA, which doesn't even PRODUCE movies, have to sue people like this? First off, that's the job of the Movie company that produced the movie, and secondly, Motion Picture... That's a movie, not a television film. So, now, if you copied and rebroadcast, say, Star Trek: Enterprise, it would be Paramount's job to sue, not the MPAA on behalf of the company. In almost any REALISTIC court of law (I guess Memphis is still one of the few left in the USA) you cannot file a lawsuit on behalf of anyone, except in the case of a wrongful death.

    Someoe correct me if I'm wrong on any of those points, I welcome the extra info.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  153. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    download the torrents via irc (EFNet/#bt) or even newsgroups, as both mediums are largely untouched by the **aa

  154. Sort of a double standard? by iamghetto · · Score: 1

    I pay for a cd and the music on it, and I can download it in mp3 from wherever I want for my personal use. That's perfectly legal.

    But I pay for cable, I watch the shows, and its illegal for me to download them? Huh?

    I understand the TV is a business driven by ad revenue, and because of that, the only crime here would seem to be removing the commercials.

    Why don't the tv networks get together on a "secure" drm movie format, a secure free properietary player, and lets us download our tv shows with the commercials in them? With the format and the media player they could take extremely aggressive actions to stop you from fast forwarding through commericals... and then just let us DOWNLOAD THEM FOR FREE.

    The main reason I download shows is for convience. I no longer have to a slave to my TV. If they'd just give us "handcuffed" shows to download with a media player, I think we'd all love that.

    And if we didn't love that, perhaps we could pay a fee to watch a commerical free version of our favorite shows.

    In addition, television stations could stand to make even more money because more people could have access to their shows. People would no longer have to choose between watching 24 on FOX and Everybody Loves Raymond on CBS. You could watch both shows and both the television audience and the tv networks would benefit.

    Couldn't we all be happy with this?

  155. Re:btefnet by kromozone · · Score: 1

    Better to be legally bulletproof than traffic bulletproof

  156. *cough*Transformers*cough*MyLittlePony*cough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahhhmmmmm.... sorry about that.

    Now what were you saying about Cartoons in the 1980's being vehicles for toy advertising?

  157. why? by calyptos · · Score: 1

    I mean, its not like they are losing money. A person can't go out and buy the tv show. Perhaps it should be legal to do, with the requirement that you don't cut out commercials. If the commercials are left in, then they really aren't losing.

    Trying to stop MOVIES on p2p networks I can understand. If i could go out to the corner store, or some online store, and buy last night's episode of "King of the Hill", I would. But its not an option and they aren't losing money.

    --
    http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
  158. Insufficient information by antizeus · · Score: 1
    Your favorite new media (song, movie, etc...) is available for purchase. It is released in a completely non-DRM'ed format. Do you pay for it, or do you search for somebody else who has already paid for it and is sharing it?
    I am not the parent poster, but you should probably address the cost of this hypothetical content (not media, that's different).
    --
    -- $SIGNATURE
  159. Re:btefnet by zakezuke · · Score: 1

    Nope, unfortunately, I live about 8 hours away from the border.

    1. Get it from the newsgroup [alt.binaries.drwho]. This may require a subscription to giganews or supernews if your ISP doesn't carry it. Your choice of Divx, Xvid, HQ Xvid, or straight 1.3gig(or so) mpeg-2.

    2. Ask your local cable company to carry CBC. If you watch the olympics it's reccomended.

    3. Get a region free player that will play pal and buy the discs from the UK.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  160. Sort of a disingenuous description? by msimm · · Score: 1

    Apparently it is OK to record TV as long as your aren't sharing it.?

    I mean come on. We know the issue isn't recording it, its the redistributing it with *commercials stripped*.

    We've been back and forth about this kind of issue how many times? We ALL know that networks produce their programming content (some even good) with revenue generated how? Right! Commercials!

    So here we have a problem, with 1000's of sites serving as content repositries for commercial-free TV programs, which I can TOTALLY understand. I'll do everything I can to NEVER site through a commercial again. But its not in the networks, the producers or their stars interest in US bypassing THEIR revenue models and doing it in PLAIN SIGHT.

    Now I do fault them for not being pioneers in the content distribution department. Why can't a pay a few dollars for a commercial free download? Or at least subscribe to a network service for DRM wrapped commercial containing versions?

    We know where this is all heading, Tom Hanks gave us a ugly example of in Castaway (does anyone NOT remember the glaring American Express placement?) but thats down the pipe and they'd probably ALL prefer milk the existing system for as long as they can (and they are certainly feeling the pressure).

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Sort of a disingenuous description? by Saeger · · Score: 1
      We know where this is all heading, Tom Hanks gave us a ugly example of in Castaway (does anyone NOT remember the glaring American Express placement?)

      You mean Acme Express? In my version of the movie the blatant product placement was removed by using a fancy Edit Decision script that overlays, blurs, skips, etc. (not really, but THAT'S where this headed if it gets worse.) So, the christians can download their "anti sex&violence" edits, just as everybody else can download there "anti product placement" and "anti JarJar" edits. :)

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    2. Re:Sort of a disingenuous description? by cableshaft · · Score: 1

      Huh? American Express?

      I barely paid attention to the movie (absolutely hated it, knew I would beforehand, half slept through it even) and now, years later, I still remember the 50 billion Fed Ex packages/delivery drivers everywhere, but I don't remember this "blatant" American Express placement.

      --
      Creator of the popular web game Proximity
    3. Re:Sort of a disingenuous description? by slriv · · Score: 1

      The lack of commercials is only a small part of their issue. It's lack of control. Do you think they honestly don't have some idea about distribution on the net??? The issue is that they aren't making money off the distribution, and like all large organizations they move at a snail's pace.

      Fortunately, I guess, the upside to this nonsense is more people will give up trying to find their favorite shows on the net and buy up the various hd capture cards out there, and we'll finally, and hopefully, see the rebirth of local broadcasting as people move to Antenna based tv viewing again.

      I did just that 3 months ago and within about 5 minutes I can take the transport stream and pluck out the obnoxious commercials and then view it on my HTPC in raw transport-stream (I say raw, it's really mpeg2) which is actually better picture than most of the torrents even though it's usually 4-8GB an hour.

      I went with an
      http://www.digitalconnection.com/Products/Video/md p130.asp

      however, I'm preparing to build out a mythtv box with 3 pchdtv cards:

      http://www.pchdtv.com/

      Needless to say, I'm not going to subscribe to cable, and I let my DirecTV subscription end and now that Voom is gone, I have no pay-to-play tv.

      --
      All the worlds a stage, and I'm the guy running the lights...
    4. Re:Sort of a disingenuous description? by msimm · · Score: 1

      I've done the MythTV route. Very nice way to go and I'll certainly go that route again. We've been trying to stay away from TV and stick to our own programming but the lure of 24 or The Shield can be a little too much sometimes. :)

      --
      Quack, quack.
  161. The reason they are getting upset... by TEMMiNK · · Score: 1

    Its very simple:

    1. TV networks pay for television shows.
    2. The network gets its money back from advertising.
    3. If people circumvent the advertising then the networks won't be able to sell it for as much.
    4. The networks will pay less for shows.
    5. The shows will have a smaller budget.
    6. Smaller shows will cease to exist, and today's large shows will grow smaller and smaller until they too cease to exist.
    7. We will be left with a 24 hour news network and lame independant shows that are made in someone's garage and distributed over the internet, and by independant I mean at least until they're costs become prohibitavely expensive and first they advertise on their website, then they advertise on the show, then they do product placements, then they become a sponsored show, then they become like the paid advertisments of old.
    8. Boooom, the earth cracks in two and we all fall into the mantle and burn like Anakin OMG SPOILER...
    Before you bitch about the great evil overlord MPAA, understand that you are indirectly funding a show by buying the products or services that are advertised during that program or by paying for your subscription (but that isn't enough to fund these big budget shows so they advertise on subscription television as well). No Money = No Show. Its business baby.

    The rant has ended, go in peace.

    --
    "The stupider people think you are, the more surprised they will be when you kill them..."
  162. lets rephrase by DM9290 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Businesses exist for several reasons.

    True, Businesses exist for several reasons.

    But they survive for only 1 of 2 reasons. They are state operated or subsidized (either openly or quietly) or they consistantly rake in profit margins or growth of ohh... 20%.

    Private businesses which dont generate huge profits/growth, dont survive. Unless you know of some examples.

    --
    No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    1. Re:lets rephrase by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "Private businesses which dont generate huge profits/growth, dont survive. Unless you know of some examples."

      I know lots of examples. There is a store near me that has been run by the same couple for the last 30 years or so. Now their son runs it. It survived longer then MCI, US-WEST, and hundreds of other large corporation without ever generating huge profits or growth.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:lets rephrase by bani · · Score: 1

      sure. the mom & pop mart down the street. been operating for ~20 years. not a huge profit maker and certainly not massively growing.

      yet it's still here!

      20 years is better than a lot of corporations.

    3. Re:lets rephrase by mp3phish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Private businesses which dont generate huge profits/growth, dont survive.

      Your argument sounds awefully like the classic humans eat food argument. If you like it or you don't, it doesn't matter. Businesses don't have to generate huge profits or grow to survive. Most small businesses that are 5 years or older will never become a large profit generator. They will also probably never grow more than a few times their size. That is because they are small businesses.

      It is surprising I have to remind you that small businesses exist. Typically someone with your claims would be trolling around bragging about how good small business is for our economy. How we need to give them tax breaks, and how we need to subsidize them with grants to get them on their feet.. etc etc...

      But you already though of this and didn't bring it up because it is against your above argument.

      But they survive for only 1 of 2 reasons. They are state operated or subsidized (either openly or quietly)

      Well lets see, Microsoft is subsidized by government contracts. Boeing is subsidized by government contracts. IBM is subsidized by government contracts. Dell is subsidized by government contracts. But then what is a subsidary? The MPAA is subsidized by movie ticket buyers. The RIAA is subsidized by people who purchase albums and singles.

      The money all comes from one place (the consumers) and all ends up in one place (the business or "providers"). The providers then divvy up the money back to the consumers how they see fit through payroll. The cycle continues.

      The same exact cycle happens with government subsidary. The consumers get together, appoint leaders, and decide as a group which businesses a percentage of their money should go to. The difference is that (hopefully) it is for a cause that is for the greater good, rather than for the greed of the business executives.

      Of course there is a lot unsaid here. But I hope you get the general idea. There isn't much difference either way except that government subsidary has a tendancy to be looked at negatively by the "conservative" economist and the coporate greed has a tendancy to be looked at negatively by the "liberal" economist. If you can call them that.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    4. Re:lets rephrase by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
      Private businesses which dont generate huge profits/growth, dont survive. Unless you know of some examples.

      I'm going to skip over all the mom and pop shop down the street, part of the community, doin' it for the love anecdotes. Here's an example; super markets. Yes, they exist to generate profit/growth, but huge got nothing to do with it. Folks down at at Winn Dixie are eeking out closer to 2% margin. 20% ain't even in their dreams.

    5. Re:lets rephrase by cloudspot · · Score: 1
      Boiled down:

      Money is the lubricant that keeps the process going, not the reason for the process.

      I don't go to work just for the money adn I certainly don't run my small business for the money...

      --
      Need professional pictures taken in the Puget Sound? Hire me!
    6. Re:lets rephrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must have been really uncomfortable sitting in your chair with those numbers up your ass. I'm glad you were able to get them out.

    7. Re:lets rephrase by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to skip over all the mom and pop shop down the street, part of the community, doin' it for the love anecdotes. Here's an example; super markets. Yes, they exist to generate profit/growth, but huge got nothing to do with it. Folks down at at Winn Dixie are eeking out closer to 2% margin. 20% ain't even in their dreams.

      They make 2% margin on each sale. It doesnt take 1 year to make a sale. If they turn over their inventory 30 times in a year, and make 2% each time..... think about it. velocity.

      Walmart averages even less than 2% if I'm not mistaken.

      Walmart actually turns over their entire inventory of toilet paper more than once per day!

      I was referring to a 20% return on investment in a year.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    8. Re:lets rephrase by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken.

      Walmart makes about a 20% gross profit margin

      Grocery Stores make about 2-3% gross profit.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    9. Re:lets rephrase by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      Walmart makes about a 20% gross profit margin

      No one is talking about gross profit margins.

      I'm talking about RETURN ON INVESTMENT

      This is comparing apples and oranges.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    10. Re:lets rephrase by mp3phish · · Score: 1

      You are very insightful. Thank you for your post. I was trying to get that point across and you did it very simply.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    11. Re:lets rephrase by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      but the grandparent you responded to was talking about margins, what measurement of ROI are you using?

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    12. Re:lets rephrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same exact cycle happens with government subsidary. The consumers get together, appoint leaders, and decide as a group which businesses a percentage of their money should go to.

      Except it's not quite the same, because if you decide you want to opt out, men with guns will come force you to pay anyway.

    13. Re:lets rephrase by mp3phish · · Score: 1

      If you decide to opt out of paying for sewer treatment, you will have a problem surviving.

      If you decide to opt out of water purification, you too will have a problem surviving.

      If you decide to opt out of national security, you will have a hard time surviving.

      If you decide to opt out of local security (police force) you will have trouble surviving.

      If you decide to opt out of buying gasoline, you will also probably have a problem finding a job (thus surviving)

      If you decide to opt out of buying groceries, you will probably have a hard time surviving.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    14. Re:lets rephrase by vmfedor · · Score: 1

      Yes you do. You need to eat. You're assuming wanting to make money makes you an evil person.

      --

      I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.

  163. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm downloading from btefnet right now. It took awhile to get a slot on Bt-Serv in the IRC channel, but...

  164. Ah, wrong. by shmlco · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Companies that base their business on being middle men are never going to be for a way to do business without them.

    First, the process you're trying to elucidate is called disintermediation.

    Second, there will always be a place for "middle men" if they provide sufficient value.

    Do I want to deal with every publisher on the planet... or buy from Amazon? Do I want to comb every newspaper for stories and deals... or check Yahoo and eBay? Do I want an acount with every movie studio or NetFlix?

    Do I want to try browsing every site on the web for the information I need... or do I do a Google search.

    They are all "middle men" and they all provide a useful service.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    1. Re:Ah, wrong. by lpret · · Score: 1

      Exactly! For all the hoopla we hear about the internet empowering people to have direct access to products, the internet has created more middlemen than anything else. Most (all?) of the "successful" internet companies are nothing but a redefinition of middlemen -- ebay, amazon, google, yahoo -- each of these are simply able to disseminate more sellers, products, ads, and information.

      --
      This is my digital signature. 10011011001
    2. Re:Ah, wrong. by BandwidthHog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference being that eBay doesn't go after people who have Saturday morning yard sales.

      I'm not saying that's a 100% perfect analogy, just that there's a fundamental difference between middlemen and a cartel.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    3. Re:Ah, wrong. by Cougem · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if TV programmes were streamed you could have one site doing all the TV shows, you wouldn't get the problems of having to use many different channels due to air-time constraints.

      Programmes, because there are less numbers of them than musical artists, could make a contract with a net-based TV programme provider, and would probably the one with the most downloaders if they get paid per download.

      THAT'S why the TV companies are scared, you wont need as many of them if we end with the technology.

    4. Re:Ah, wrong. by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

      Second, there will always be a place for "middle men" if they provide sufficient value

      Sure, but the problem is when middlemen who *don't* provide much value interfere with efforts to improve the system. You mention Amazon and netflix, but they're more like endpoints than middlemen. You forget the shipping guys, the warehousing guys, the organization that brings together a few movie houses (and take a cut) then resell it to other middlemen, and then the movie eventually makes it to amazon.

      When systems improve and certain middlemen are no longer necessary, they get pissed. Tough. The business world changes rapidly, and while middlemen will always be useful, it won't always be the *same* middlemen. A little OT, but I think that's what is happening to TV stations - they're finding that they're not the preferred distribution method for TV shows...

  165. Downloading shows has me watching new stuff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I skipped out on the first half of the season of Lost, until my friends pursuaded me to download them and watch it. Since then I have been glued to the TV screen on Wednesday nights, (when i wasn't in class) watching all the twists and turns. Otherwise, I would have been indifferent to the show still. I plan on buying the DVD's in september when they are released. I own several series on DVD because I thoroughly enjoyed them (also have then on CD so I had something to watch between seasons). Now they want to alienate me and others like me by doing this kind of stuff... Dissovle the **AA's

  166. FYI: Smallville hasn't ended its season... by antdude · · Score: 2, Informative

    1.5 hours next Wednesday night is the last one for this season.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:FYI: Smallville hasn't ended its season... by aztracker1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMHO Smallville has it right.. their seasons end in late spring/early summer, and that year comes out in time for xmas, for about $50 for the season.. I have 1-3 on dvd, have the fourth on disk, and will buy it happily when it comes out... I cringe when I see a season for much more than that.. when they're over $100 for a season, forget it..

      Smallville is about the only series that I've seen try this, if they all did, my parents would have a much easier time in finding something to get me, apparently I'm difficult to shop for at xmas time.

      I *buy* the series I download, or record when available... I don't feel guilty at all downloading in the meantime... my GF has paid $$$ for Inuyasha and other series, so f*ck the tv media... I can record on my MCE box and convert and cut the commercials myself if I want to... so stuff it *AA

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  167. there are plenty more sites by Punker22 · · Score: 1

    elitetorrents, unrealtorrents there are hundreds still out there MPAA will never win.

  168. Re:Torrent speed. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    I have downloaded some TV shows in less time than it takes to play them. If you have 30 seeders and 30 "leechers" you will typically get over 200kbps. I peak just over 500kbps using Azureus which is a java BT client. For now I've been getting four currently showing programs- alias, lost, desperate housewives and kojak. Haven't seen an episode yet- I'll watch them all in one glorious sitting at the end of the season. I could almost as easily be recording them off my cable. If I buy a DVR for $179, I can definately record them easier than torrenting them. And those copies I easily edit commercials out of with ULEAD and reburn and give to any of my friends. It's a strange world.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  169. In singapore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's the other way around... Prostitution is legal, porn is not... :)

  170. individuals too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did they sue individuals too?

  171. Let me get this straight by Darth23 · · Score: 1
    The RIAA goes after music traders, then music sales start slipping.

    The MPAA recently started going after movie traders, now the Box Office numbers in the theaters are slipping.

    Anyone want to bet that tv ratings start slipping even more now that they're going after tv show traders?

    And on top of it all, the DVDs and CDs I bought recently has that stupid FBI anti-piracy logos on them. Makes me not want to spend any more money on new CDs or new DVDs.

    How long until they start going after Used CD and DVD sellers?

    I just bought the Firefly DVD set AFTER seeing rave reviews (her and other places) ahead of the upcoming movie and AFTER downloading the premiere and the first few episodes.

    I just started buying Buffy the Vampire Slayer on DVD AFTER borrowing the seasons from a friend and watching them all.

    One activity is perfectly legal and one is apparently the biggest crime of the 21st Century.

    The media companies are going to pay. They're too big and corrupt and clueless to survive for long.

    --

    -------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

  172. Oblig. by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

    Instead of spending $500 on hookers,

    Bender: What to do, what to do? One three hundred dollar hookerbot, or three hundred one dollar hookerbots?

  173. Re:btefnet by Pofy · · Score: 1

    >I posted the list first but *I'M* the one who
    >get's modded "redundant".

    Of course it is redundant, regardless of if you are first or not, it is allready in the article. Just copying something from the article is always redundant since the article is always "first".

  174. Well, I'm gonna actively troll this by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    Guess what? I want my TV to be just that: a TV. That's why the knob goes "thunk" when you turn it to a different chan. If I want to see something again, then I'll *buy a copy of the movie*.

    Go figure.

    Same goes for the phone (Bell model 500), radio, software, etc.

    And FWIW just IMHO most of the crap that is available nowdays is just that: crap. I get along just fine without any of it. I don't *need* electronic shit to have a life, thinksyouverymuch.

    --
    C|N>K
  175. Yarrr by sockonafish · · Score: 1

    If I hadn't downloaded a torrent of the Firefly series (many many months after its cancellation), I wouldn't be so incredibly psyched to see Serentiy this Fall.

  176. Re:Uh, yeah we uh, um a mission statement or somet by mp3phish · · Score: 1

    Is that your argument for everything? You really believe that is the type of comeback that can drive home the above point? You really think that making a joke about government corruption isn't ironic when you are going to sit there and praise corporate corruption? Give me a fucking break.

    --
    Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
  177. Seriously by berkut7 · · Score: 1

    How much does fox earn in advertisament per episode of simpsons? A dated statistic ( here) said 30 seconds of ads cost around $300K in 2000. I think there are 8 minutes of commercials out of the total 30 minutes. A rought estimate with those values is around $5 million per show. What I want to find out is how much do I make them in ad revenues. I bet it's far less than 1 dollar/person. I bet since Fox is the middleman here, it would be possible to buy an eposode directly from the maker for much less, or perhaps for 1 dollar per episode for unlimited viewing.
    Now Season 5 sells on Amazon for around 1.5/episode on DVD. For bittorrent distribution ~$1/episode seems reasonable.

  178. Actually, OVER-AIR retransmissions are 100% legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Think about the last couple of laws that have been passed that may affect this.

    #1: you can now sell movies that have been 'christianized' and 'sanitized' legally.

    #2: You are NOT DECRYPTING anything from an over-air transmission. It was broadcast in the clear. That means that ABC/NBC/CBS/UPN are pretty much without recourse, since their shows are over air broadcast, and they are not encrypted. HBO, etc may have recourse, since those channels are CABLE ONLY.

    #3: So, if I capture an OVER-AIR broadcast, remove the commercials, and post it as a 'sanitized' version, am I breaking any laws? Absolutely not. I don't want my kids to see that crap on desperate housewives where you can see her nipples, so I choose to DOWNLOAD a sanitized copy. And that's LEGAL. Now, if it were HBO, I wouldn't have that recourse, since I can't prove I paid for HBO. But over-air are free game. We game them the damn spectrums for FREE, so now we get to benefit from the spectrums for FREE.

    Everyone keeps saying 'it's copyright infringement'. I would say that as long as it's over air broadcast, WITH THE NEW LAW ALLOWING SANITATION OF SHOWS, you've effectively given me the LEGAL RIGHT to sanitize the show and resell it to my special clientelle.

  179. SoAA by gaanagaa · · Score: 1

    Latest news: The formation of SoAA. 50/50 share-holders are MPAA and RIAA. This new subdivision is Soap Opera Association of America.

  180. Old tactics... by Martigan80 · · Score: 1

    You know this tactic of the MPAA reminds me of many government agencies when threatened with down-sizing. They just throw crap out there to legitimize their pitiful existence.

    --
    This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
  181. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly, it's odd there isn't more interest in Usenet.

    ISPs won't monitor what you download because they don't want to be known for spying on customers (plus there's effort required to set up the monitoring).

    The Usenet supplier won't monitor your downloads because shopping your customers to the **AA/Police isn't good for business.

    And finally since there's no compulsory sharing/uploading with Usenet there's nothing for the **AAs of the world to spy on.

    Let's hope it continues to be ignored for a long time to come!

  182. Thank you MPAA by gullevek · · Score: 1

    Thank you so much. Really. Now you healed my from my addicition to download the latest show from Simpsons, American Dad, Family Guy, Enterprise, etc. Really thank you. Now I can finally go home and read a book.

    On the other hand. A friend is totaly devestated (remark we don't live in the USA so we need to get the shows in some other way if we want to watch them). Where should he get his shows from. Well he proably has to start nag some friends. Like it happend when I was in school and I had cable and a friend not and I had to record all the shows to VHS (and I cut out the ads by hand == stop on commercial).

    And last: supernova is gone and there are tons of others who replaced it, tvtorrent is gone too and if bfe net is gone also, then there will be other re-appearing. Its just like weed, you can rip it out from the ground but it will re-appear somewhere else.

    --
    "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
  183. Really? by el_womble · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My one gripe with 'stolen' bittorent TV is that they rip the advertisments out. Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather watch TV without adverts, but I also understand that making TV is not cheap and that somebody has got to pay for it and until Apple gets it together and start selling TV that means adverts.

    I understand that its not a perfect solution. At the moment, advertisers pay networks, networks commission production houses and production houses pay the staff. But whilst they still exist distribution networks should be embracing this as, so long as the adverts are intact, they are getting paid for nothing. Geeks rip the TV using legal software and distibute it at their own expense. Advertisers hit a bigger market, and if the networks are savvy they can charge advertisers more. Where is the problem?

    Here is my prediction for a happier TV future

    1. Regular TV. Bored? Watched your faourite shows already? Why not sit back, open a can of beer and channel surf for a bit. Sure there are more adverts, no pausing and you can't choose whats next, but who cares?
    2. Free Internet TV. Download your favourite shows from network websites for free with the adverts on. Sure they're released after the show was aired, but if you could have watched it then you would have.
    3. Apple TV. ITMS expands to show your favourite shows 2 weeks early, with no ads for $0.50 a show. Sure its expensive, but the quality is l33t, and you feel like your a TV god. Its got DRM which limits Joe Public from distributing it legally. Apple modify the Bittorent protocol to reduce bandwidth costs.
    4. DVDs and merchanise. Fans love em. Geeks love em. The highest quality money can buy, with additional bonus material and a cool box. They released just before the season finally on TV and generate an additional income for shows that are genuinely good.

    The technology is there already. TV networks need to wake up and start doing this now.

    --
    Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
  184. Torrent the Commercials!! by d474 · · Score: 1

    What would the MPAA say about .torrent files going around with nothing but 30 minutes of back-to-back commercials??

    "Dude, I've got the latest laundry commercials. What about you?"

    "Man, I spent all weekend hunting down the McDonalds 'I'm Lovin' It' campaign-International Set, SEASON 1."

    "Dude, is it good?"

    "Man, I'm lovin' it!!!"

    *MPAA springs wood*

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  185. Whew... what a relief! by TrentC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm so glad this happened.

    See, I've been without cable for probably going on 3-4 years now. And we get crappy reception, so broadcast TV doesn't work well either.

    I was pretty happy with my lack of TV until someone told me where I could get full episodes of The Daily Show via bittorrent. So I downloaded Azureus since it has a couple of nifty RSS plugins and started gathering them.

    Then I noticed other shows on the list. Wait a minute, is that really the new Battlestar Galactica? I watched the mini-series at a friend's house, this is great! I downloaded them all, and I told my friends who watched it when it finally aired on Sci-Fi in the U.S. I also started to get Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis, since those were a couple of weeks ahead of the U.S. (and I was basically getting mega-doses at a TiVo-owning friend's house).

    I was renting Smallville through Netflix, but when I hit the end of season 3, I started getting those through bittorrent as well. Then the new Doctor Who showed up, and I was thrilled; the show is good, and I was telling my friends in the hopes that it would eventually hit the U.S. in DVD form.

    I was basically starting to reconsider getting cable again -- the downloads are nice, but I have a small hard drive, and I work a swing shift, so they're not always done when I get home -- and perhaps even springing for a TiVo since I can't be home to watch stuff when it normally airs. Then I got home to read this article.

    So I have to say, thanks MPAA! With this incredibly fucktarded move on your part, you have lost a potential paying customer, probably for good.

    You almost made me forget what short-sighted, greedy fools you were. I'll not make that mistake again.

    Jay (=

  186. Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of the television shows that I watch are broadcasted in the clear over the air. With the right equipment anyone can listen. I chose to use a device called "an antenna" and attached it to my television set. Look, I'm watching your content without paying. During a commercial I mute the audio and turn away - let's be honest, I wouldn't buy the crap advertised anyways.

    With the invention of recording devices I can do anything I want with the recording - hey, they obviously don't care enough to prohibit who watches it, fer chrissakes they send it, unencrypted, no DRM over the air for anyone to watch as it is. Why bitch and moan when someone does the same thing?

    1. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      encrypted dvb-t is just around the corner. phear it :(

    2. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until media outlets cease transmitting without encryption I will continue to take what they are giving away for free and give it a larger audience, that seems to be their motivation in the first place.

  187. Re:btefnet by torokun · · Score: 1


    Gee, I hate to think what you'd do if they just decided to stop making those shows...

  188. Won't somebody think of the Expats?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am devastated that btefnet is no more. For the last few months it's been saving me from watching German TV, which tends to have the same shows, but dubbed for the locals (occasionally shows have an English option). I think there is a large expat community which greatly appreciated the service provided by these sites.

    In Germany, you can get UK satellite TV - but that itself is illegal, I believe, and they require that you have a UK address.

    I agree with one suggestion in another comment that they should provide the shows for download themselves, complete with advertising.

  189. Here is what really happened.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kudos, shuntv! My early morning site - after living in the US for four years, this was my one way to get the shows that I love that are not broadcast in my country, most importantly TDS...

    Here is what happened: The MPAA member companies and the MPAA have been banging the drum loudly about movie piracy. What then happened was that about half a year ago, newspapers started reporting about TV piracy - the fact that you could watch episodes of 24 and E.R. for example in the UK before they reached overseas syndication.

    Now the licensees of these shows in the UK, such as Channel 4, especially did something very clever. They didn't complain against users of the services, instead they went to MPAA member companies and argued that the licensees fees that they pay for syndication rights should be reduced, as the MPAA itself had argued that bittorrent sites eat into the market.
    So the MPAA campaigns had actually backfired - by talking up the threat and loss, they found themselves being argued to lower income through syndication. So now, they are doing this, so that overseas broadcasters resume full fees.

    So it's not us, the simple user downloading an episode of the Daily Show. They argue about 10,000 users, but the market that we could offer, e.g. 5000 Dollars (let's say 5000 users pay $1 daily to get the Daily Show overseas) are not even enough to cover the legal base for such a contract.
    This was all about million US$ per episode license fee for 24 and Lost for UK and scandinavian broadcasters. Those series syndication negotiations screwed us getting our Daily Show and Real Time fix. The MPAA member companies now go back to the broadcasters and say 'see? we fixed it - please give us the full amount again'....

    In the end this is all a bit shortsighted. Most people realize that the age of commercial broadcasting is close to being over. The people that the advertisers target (19-34 with cash) are sick of wasting their time with watching TV ads. But until universal VOD is a reality, it will take 5-7 years.

    I have really enjoyed this website and huge kudos to syoung, TeamTV and all the others...
    What I miss most is that the site introduced me to programming that I would not be exposed to otherwise.

  190. They send it out free for the TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's free. As long as you're not profiting off their work, why should they get to do shit about this?

  191. IRC? by Teja · · Score: 1

    Most often, people will get the shows off IRC, create a torrent, upload it to the masses. So ever wondered if MPAA has looked at IRC?

    --
    - Teja
  192. Daft MPAA by fullofangst · · Score: 1

    MPAA you silly people, you don't need to sue us, we're paying "piracy" tax on CDR media. It's perfectly acceptable for us to pirate your films now.

  193. TV shows by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    As long as your TV licence is paid up, you and any members of your household are licenced to receive programmes broadcast by cable, satellite or terrestrial analogue or digital signals, or any means yet to be invented. The courts have ruled that it is fair dealing under copyright law to record a broadcast programme for viewing later.

    So as long as you have a valid TV licence and the people downloading from you have valid TV licences, you should be fine with offering TV programmes for upload. After all, you paid for the privilege of receiving those broadcasts; and the receipt is on your mantelpiece {or wherever you keep your important documents}.

    You might need a rebroadcast licence; but since you aren't using an RF transmitter, this should not be expensive. If the bandwidth of your outgoing connection is small enough, you could well be exempt from this requirement anyway {after all, councils and housing associations don't need a rebroadcast licence to plumb a communal antenna to several flats; the tenants' TV licences are enough}.

    Now, if someone is downloading TV programmes from you without a valid TV licence, then they almost certainly are committing an offence. A simple warning on your download site ought to be enough to keep you out of trouble.

    Side questions: (1) If a friend comes into your house and watches your TV, do they need to have a valid TV licence? (2) If you have a display-less TV receiver {e.g. a video recorder or NICAM receiver} in one building, connected to a receiver-less display {e.g. an old Amiga monitor with a composite video input} in another building, which building actually needs the TV licence?

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    1. Re:TV shows by MichaelMarch · · Score: 1

      Ok, so this comes up to the question I've made a few times and never get a vaild answer. I live out in the country and can't get cable. But after I purchased some powered bunny ears I was able to get 15 channels. I have high-speed dsl, so I can watch the shows with some fuzz on the bunny ears OR I can just download the show online and watch it when I feel like it. So if show is broadcasted over the air? Is it still illegal to download?

    2. Re:TV shows by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      It's probably not illegal as long as your TV licence is up to date, unless your TV licence specifies what transmission and reception technology you can use. I think in most countries, satellite TV is paid for through subscription services rather than a premium on the licence. Check your licence .....

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  194. Pirate Bay by frank249 · · Score: 1

    I used to go to btefnet.net to download the Daily Show but they were taken down when I checked last night. Fourtunately it appears The Pirate Bay appears to be hosting some of the shows. Last night's Daily Show was available this morning. It is not organized by show like btefnet was but the old saying still is true: The internet treats censorship like damage and just routes around it.

    --

    Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

    1. Re:Pirate Bay by wildchild07770 · · Score: 1

      I use the bay frequently and probably more than any other torrent site. However, for anyone not paying attention they will also most likely be going away June 1st due to changes in swedish copyright laws.

    2. Re:Pirate Bay by frank249 · · Score: 1

      As some other posters pointed out, it is the donation page that is problematic. Sites will not be allowed to make money from hosting torrents. We will have to wait and see if they can afford to take that page off and continue as a free site.

      --

      Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

  195. Bit-torrent sharing by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1
    Hmm... i wonder if the argument would hold that when a tv show is d/led from the internet that someone's share ratio is set to 1 or 2 the most he's sharing it with is one or two other people.

    That way it can be claimed that you aren't re-broadcasting it. You're merely sending a copy to one or two other people.

  196. Stargate Atlantis got my cable service terminated! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stargate Atlantis was one of the T.V. shows. Back in December 2004, Adelphia terminated my cable service account (for forever -- blacklisted) for DMCA because I was sharing two Stargate Atlantis episodes over Bittorrent according to BayTSP and MGM's hardcopy letter.

    I wasn't alone. See http://www.google.com/search?q=baytsp+mgm+stargate ...

  197. Exactly how backwards are the MPAA? by SlashDread · · Score: 1

    I mean

    first it was music, we had to rip and share, because there were no legal sellers on this perfect distribution medium. STILL noone except Apple has made a real efford going there, but its coming, perhaps too little too late.

    then it was movies, we had to rip and share, because Broadband made it easy, and STILL noone in the movie business has taken up the Big Fat Gaping hole in their distribution market. Thats easy, if as the content provider you ALSO control distribution. But we the customers still get fsckecked.

    now its TV shows, we have to rip and share, because, again, the internet is largely not used as a distribution or supporting medium for TV shows.

    When Will They Learn? Thick (or extremely greedy) bastards.

  198. I fail to see their point... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    "Every television series depends on other markets (such as) syndication and international sales to earn back the enormous investment required to produce the comedies and dramas we all enjoy," MPAA Chief Executive Officer Dan Glickman said in a statement. "Those markets are substantially hurt when that content is stolen."

    Oh, so your DVD recorder secretly assist in international sales when you record a TV show (and possibly give it to friends), and that's why they haven't tried banning DVD recorders yet?

    Seriously, that quote is so messed up it isn't even funny. Yeah, right, before DVD came and entire seasons weren't regularly sold in stores, the concept of TV series didn't work. And VHS/DVD recorders are tools of the devil because they let people not assist in "international sales" that "every television series depends on".

    It's like they're seriously just trying to piss off people.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  199. Re:btefnet by hagardtroll · · Score: 1

    Both posts are redundant, since the list was IN THE ARTICLE. But then I'm off topic and a flamebait, so what do I know.

  200. Screw them by arock99 · · Score: 1

    They are going to lose on possible revenue here. I've got at least 22 seasons of several tv shows that i never would have picked up had i not downloaded the first couple episodes of each show off P2P networks..that comes out to at least 500.00CAD a year. I sure hope they smarten up and at least share the first couple episodes of a show so I can continue to test out new shows otherwise they will simply lose out on my business anyways.

  201. Re:btefnet by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

    I'm no longer a part of this society.

    Dude. You're on slashdot. You most likely haven't been part of society for many years now.

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  202. never gonna change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this is starting to sound cliche but their business model is outdated. It is not stealing anymore than if I recorded the show and gave it to a friend to view. It is just a matter of scale. I completly reject their claims and will continue downloading TV shows (and whatever else I deam ok) as long as it is available to me.

    Some things I will not download out of respect for the company, product, work involved etc, but I have no problem downloading a TV show that is already available for free to anyone who has a TV.

    IOW, I'll stop when they pry the mouse out of my cold dead hands.

  203. War on... by ChaosCube · · Score: 2

    "war on Internet file-swapping sites"

    War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Internet File-Swapping Sites...

    You know, if I was wasting as much time and money as these guys are, my wife would shoot me square in the balls, and I would deserve it.

    --
    BDR Gear
    Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!
  204. Re:btefnet by Bill+Wong · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm, german hosting to avoid US laws?...
    That still might not be enough.

    If I were in their shoes, this is what I would do:
    1) Generate multiple fake IDs
    2) Buy prepaid debit cards online with fake IDs (repeat as necessary.)
    3) Buy webhosting in China with disposable debit cards, using fake ID
    4) Run a BT-Site/Tracker in China
    5) Profit? (from Ads, etc.)

    I mean, if people fighting spam can't stop chinese servers from spamming, it's going to be equally impossible to prevent them from hosting torrents...

    And even if the MPAA manages to convince a chinese company to shut down the site, you're still protected by hopefully several layers of obscurity.

    The latency isn't going to be great, but, if that's what it takes to share my m0vies/tv/pr0n...

  205. At least, torrents have the original soundtrack by KnightTristan · · Score: 1

    While indeed DVDs often have additional features (like deleted scenes and director commentary like you said), they most often had to replace the original soundtrack by something cheaper.

    It's crazy. The license they need to pay for the soundtrack when broadcasting is apparently much cheaper than the one when selling DVDs.

    http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,66696,00 .html
    http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60 890,00.html

    And that kind of sucks too.

    Tristan.

  206. Magnet links by Danathar · · Score: 1

    Since Azureus supports distributed trackerless torrents and magnet link URI's, as long as the magnet link is avaiable somewhere (usenet, google web cache, ect...) torrent swarms will continue to exist....even if these sites are down..

    All we need now is for the web sites that are left to post the magnet links....then all you need to do is search for them on google..

  207. Re:Good point by certel · · Score: 1

    That's a great point. But the torrent found on the site, is that not also a very small percentage of the program itself, or are tracker programs JUST instructions for the material?

  208. Don quixote and bittorrent: MPAA continues to resi by ahneill · · Score: 1

    I posted on this at http//improvised.blogspot.com Don quixote and bittorrent: MPAA continues to resist new technologies The fact that we even call it an entertainment "industry" is a problem in and of itself. Sounds more like turning out mass quantity, maximizing profits than the quality thought process that most of us would hope we would be putting in our brains. Today the MPAA sued 6 bittorrent tracker sites, sites that post small files that basically tell a computer where to go, to many various servers, to pick up the small pieces that eventually make up a commplete file. For many people who can't schedule their life around the TV, the realization that the technology exists to actually have content available WHEN WE WANT IT is a step in the right direction. So you would have thought major media/entertainment companies would have been jumping on the bandwagon, trying to define this new distribution potential, thereby protecting there content? Instead, groups like the MPAA are engaging in ridiculous battles like the recent site shutdowns due to lawsuit. Shutting down 6 sites on the internet is, as the rightfully digusted doomd.com points out, is like using gasoline to put out a fire. The internet is designed to brand fools, like Dan Glickman of the MPAA, who think they can stop an entire technology, as the don quixotes of the world. I have seen a few good posts out there in the wake of this new futile attempt to deal with new technology. Ka D'Argo, posting at slashdot, talks about the ridiculous divide between the technology available and the entertainment industry's attempt to leverage it's crumbling monopoly. Single seasons of series of television shows going for $80, entire series for hundreds of dollars? Syndicated television shows? The availability of these is also pitiful. Where is the adoption of a new business model? Don't think that these actions couldn't have consequences, however. It looks like they just might not be the one's the large media companies want. As is happening with the decentralization of power in the news media market, the effort by a group like the MPAA to limit access to television that most of us already have coming into our homes, could only PUSH PEOPLE TOWARDS NEW MEDIA. For example, the Open Media Network. This is a fascinating concept, and I agree, the future of public television. Video blogs, independently created content will just grab more attention from the networks, major entertainment companies, as viewers/consumers will find, as I have begun to find, that while independently created content can sometimes not be as polished, the content itself can vastly outstrip much of the mass entertainment we see today. For example, to spin off into news media for a second, Netvideo, is a freely distributed internet program hosted by Jason Romney, an Australian. Romney hosts video interviews through the internet with tremendously interesting and insightful people from all around the world, the "movers and shakers" of the internet, discussing the issues that face the future of ideas and creative works, things that are changing the way we live and interact. In contrast, When I turn on CNN, they spend 24hrs./day for a week nibbling at the Vatican's heels for a new pope or chasing some woman who got cold feet prior to her wedding day. WAKE UP PEOPLE! It's not just news and information, either, this independent content is entertainment too. I know I'd rather watch some video of a local person in Iraq describing their life than the latest episode of a contrived "reality" tv show. The networks could easily distribe in a method through the internet that would only bolster their profits. One of the key issues holding this back, however, is international and local affiliates are freaked at losing something, but at some point we have to understand that the broadcast model is outdated. For instance, if NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, offered their shows over the internet, they could deliver them however they wanted to, including commercials and maybe slightly reduced quality. Hey, go for broke, have us enter

  209. i wonder... by Spazztastic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...can I turn off my computer from school...?

    --
    Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
  210. Let me see if I understand this... by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's somehow illegal for me to take the shows that you make available on TV for Free and send them to anyone else for Free?

    Huh? How is it hurting you that I'm spreading the popularity of your show at my expense for bandwidth, etc. I mean, if you broadcast a show to 2 million viewers, and then I p2p it to another million, isn't more viewers WHAT YOU WANTED?

    Or are you still believing that we're actually sitting and WATCHING the adverts that you slip into the show about every 10 minutes now, rather than using that time to take a leak, talk on the phone, eat, whatever else we need to do?

    At *some* point, someone's going to figure out that most advertising is complete bunkum, and we're going to have the biggest economic crash in history, as well-dressed but penniless marketing people beg for spare change to wash your windshield or do a market study.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Let me see if I understand this... by tankd0g · · Score: 1

      Producers of shows don't get money from the commercials, they sell the show to networks who in turn make their money from commercials. I'm still not too clear on why we then have to pay a cable or satelite company so we can see those commercials but that's another topic. Producers do however get money from product placements within the show, and that would be next to impossible to remove, but you don't see much of that because it may not be compatible with the advertising contracts that other networks that pick up the show in syndication might have. For example if "Friends" is brought to you by Coke and Ross is drinking a Pepsi, the rebate check better be in the mail.

    2. Re:Let me see if I understand this... by jjr1 · · Score: 1

      They're not worried about most of the commercials you don't watch, they're interested in that one commercial you do watch or just receive through sublimation and later recall it's 3 pizzas for 15$ on {insert day of the week}.

      --
      Best Trivia answer ever... Name the largest aquatic man eater... Contestant: Tsunami
    3. Re:Let me see if I understand this... by MichaelMarch · · Score: 1

      Product placement has gone a little rampent with shows like "Survivor". Jeff- "If your team wins, the prize will be flavored cans of pringles, domino pizza's and bud light beer!" Oh.. awe.. goes the contestants and then they start to foam at the mouth. This is real commercial for the products. Not two people having a very unreal conversation and then bust into some techno dance with flying colors everywhere. I really can't stand the idea of paying for a service to have commercials brought into your home. Crap. Crap. Crap. If I pay for a service, let me use the service I want.

    4. Re:Let me see if I understand this... by tankd0g · · Score: 1

      god help us if here is actually another network out there that wants to buy and air reruns of Survivor :)

  211. What about doctors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't they just middlemen between you and the undertaker?

  212. Blacklash from a spoiled child by tankd0g · · Score: 1

    They lost the Broadcast flag bill and like clockwork the black lash arrives. Poor babies. Now if only congress would come up with a bill to prevent arbitrary suing of web sites and IP addresses. How exactly do you cross examine an IP address anyway? I guess it would be no more bizarre that Michael Jackson taking the stand.

  213. Advertising! by codefool · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...the shows that you make available on TV for Free...

    Television shows are not 'free' - they are to you and me in terms of real cost, but the producers of those shows sells advertising time which pays, in part, for the show. The better the show, the more viewers it attracts, and although the aggregate water pressure drops at every commercial break, the number of potential eyeballs that might stick around to view the ad is what drives the show into repeat seasons, ups available cash for better production values, etc.

    In recent years, however, there's been a significant spike in the after-market for such shows. Used to be, they were doomed to be repeated on local UHF television stations or late-night affiliates. Now, there's video where you can buy the show on DVD for your very own! Now, if those shows are made available via the internet (agreeably at a lesser quality), then the incentive to purchase those after market products is reduced.

    ...isn't more viewers WHAT YOU WANTED?

    Well, yes, but what they want is more counted viewers. It would be cool if they could claim that they had a 6% share on the 'live' broadcast, and a 30% of internet interest? If the extra eyeballs could be quantified, they could turn those into advertising dollars which would leave them not only with nothing to complain about, but given them reason to seed the content themselves!

    It sucks, but the producers do have a right to protect their markets. The challenge, for everyone involved, is to find a happy middle-ground. The p2p interest is an un-tapped market which the MPAA would rather ignore. Would you pay $1 for a show downloaded off the internet? Is there some way to guarantee that the advertising remain inserted? How can you give the producers their candy, and the downloaders their fix, and have a win-win?

    Therein lies the challenge.

    --
    "Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
  214. graph about legal threats against torrent site by perler · · Score: 1
  215. 22 minute cartoons @ 56.8 MB by Danuvius · · Score: 1

    I actually have been successful at reencoding 260 MB 22 minute cartoon episodes down to 56.8 MB. The quality is *beautiful*, and not noticably worse than the 260 MB DivX one, unless you're sitting right up close (I am not--I watch it on TV afterwards).

    Though I should mention about 10-15 MB of savings is moving the audio from MP3 to AAC.

    Being able to get better quality with 56.8 MB than 120 MB DivX shows out there is pretty sweet in my books.

    --
    Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
    1. Re:22 minute cartoons @ 56.8 MB by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Unfortunatly Handbreak right now doesn't really give a lot of control with the Audio Portion, there are some parts where less would do (e.g. the Audio Commentary, they don't have to be Stereo or a high bitrate).

      But yes, I am deeply impressed and I started to encode the DVDs I take along on my Powerbook with H.264, which has the added benefit that for a "cool" factor I can play them back in the Desktop Movie Player ;)

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    2. Re:22 minute cartoons @ 56.8 MB by Danuvius · · Score: 1

      I myself use mplayer & mencoder with x264 (for H.264), faac (for AAC encoding), and mkvtoolnix (for muxing both into the Matroska .mkv container [which can also accept additional video/audio tracks, and even subtitles in a myriad formats]). I imagine all these tools should be available in some form for Mac OS X (though it sounds like the video part you have no troubles with). I'd be happy to exchange some tips, tricks, and good-to-knows with you on the H.264 topic. If you are game, please drop me a note at my username at gmail.com. Cheers! ;-)

      --
      Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
  216. Not divx, they use xvid. by Jagasian · · Score: 1

    Most shows on BT are in xvid, not divx. The rip community, TV or DVD, has been mostly xvid for a while now. Why does everybody still talk about divx?

    1. Re:Not divx, they use xvid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      xvid is the newer codec based on mpeg4, but divx is what started it all... they're both based on mpeg4, so we use them interchangeably since there's negligible difference between them.

      it's like saying "coke" as a generic term for all cola-based drinks.

    2. Re:Not divx, they use xvid. by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but divx is a terrible name for a codec, as it is also the name of the failed disposable DVD system.

    3. Re:Not divx, they use xvid. by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Why does everybody still talk about divx?"

      Not everyone does, just the ones with dyslexia =P

  217. MPAA of Europe by sonixtwo · · Score: 1

    Like many others, I have been enjoying European TV (Dr Who Especially). There are also some TV shows that are no longer showing, that I have gotten (Spaced is one of them, I highly recommend it www.spaced-out.org.uk). What are the chances of being sued or investigated by European Movie and TV people?

  218. Same here... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Dr. Who - Only aired in the U.K.

    Stargate: Atlantis and SG-1 - I'd be willing to pay a modest fee to view these, but $80 a month for content with commercials? NO WAY! Yes, the cable package that includes Sci-Fi is $80/month here and nearly every channel still has commercials.

    Enterprise - I'll watch this the way UPN wants me to when they upgrade their POS transmitters in the NYC area to be on par with the other networks in the area. Their digital signal (piggybacked off of FOX's transmitter in NYC) is utter shite that is even uglier than their analog signal here, which is pretty amazing considering how horrible their analog signal looks due to low signal strength.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Same here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a minor correction, Dr.Who is also aired in your neighbour to the north on the CBC.

  219. So those old TV shows that aren't being shown.... by arthurh3535 · · Score: 1

    ...can't be shared?
    I've been trying to get a copy of "Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman" for a while. The quality is not good, the badwidth (and hard drive space) are very high.
    And I'm looking very forward to the DVD collectors edition of the first season and will probably pre-order that as soon as I can save up $40.
    Not because I *couldn't* get it off the Internet, but because I am getting a good, collectors value.

    --
    No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
  220. Re:btefnet by 72beetle · · Score: 1

    Shut. The. Fuck. Up!

    Those litigious asswipes read their press. Don't give them names!

    --
    -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
  221. Oh boy, an AC is going to put me in my place! by Fortyseven · · Score: 1

    I'm most likely older than your fucking ass, you coward.

    Not that I have to explain shit to the likes of you, but typically I tend to try to be a bit more mature and articulate in my postings, but this one was a bit of a raw emotional dump which normally I would have aborted before hitting save.

    I don't need you to explain to me it's defects, cuntrag.

  222. Re:btefnet by saskboy · · Score: 1

    It's good to be both. If all of the site is on one domain, all eggs are in one basket. The site is either all up, or all down.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  223. http://www.btefnet.net/ -gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  224. The only way to save our rights by erasmix · · Score: 1

    We're living under a 21st century nazi regime. I'm affraid the only way to save our liberties, is to move them abroad. Move the torrent files to a country where the MPAA cant shut it down!!

  225. Re:btefnet by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

    Now this is an explanation I can accept. :-) Sorry, I was in a pissy mood last night...I usually wouldn't care one way or the other.

  226. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who owns/sets up the prq.to tracker that bt files are tracked by?

    Not entirely sure, but they're hosted by the same ISP as thepiratebay.org

  227. You don't quite get it by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1
    First you comparing a copyright issue with a physical good. This leads to the whole "intellectual property" confusion. Ideas are not property. They can't ever REALLY be controlled. We can agree not to copy things, or to only use trade marks in certain ways, etc but you can only sue people. You can't stop it. Even DRM just slows things down.

    Second you argument is to broad. Copyright wouldn't stop others from making the same kind of thing, only from making the exact same thing.

    Assuming Copyright covered McDonlads burgers it doesn't stop Burger King or you from buying and making your own, but you can't make and give away McDonalds burgers if you know the recipe. The analogy breaks down because it doesn't work with real-world goods.

    The constitution allows for a temporary monopoly on creative works. Fair use is allowed, and it's defined in United States Code, section 107.
    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
    So look over those factors and think about what people copying TV shows implies. The rules only say that evaluating Copyright infringment should INCLUDE these factors. Don't think judges will be limited to them. I could easily see adding
    5. the number of copies created and distributed of the copyrighted work.

    Finally the justification for copying in your argument is just silly...
    What can I do? I don't like ...
    Keywords there is "I don't like". I don't like having to pay for Photoshop. I don't like having to buy CD's for $15 each. Your options are buy or not buy. Letting your friend have a copy of your DVD = bad, letting your friend borrow your copy of your DVD = good. See the difference?

    What you can do is NOT distribute your copies. In the U.S. you have a copyright to make your own personal copies or limited distribution for the purpose of learning. You don't have world wide redistribution rights for exact replicas of the entire works.

    The key thing you need to understand here is the difference between making a backup and SHARING or DISTRIBUTING that backup. A pirated copy of my software may or may not equal a lost sale because who can say if the person would have bought my software? What people WOULD have done is irrelevant.

    Think of a bank teller who gives away a thousand dollars to everyone who comes to their window as soon as they walked up because "they would have robbed me to get it anyway". It's a bad analogy because once again we're using real world items to compare to copyright of the intangible, but the point is that the person who GAVE them the money/software/movie/song is breaking the law.

    People can give away their software and destroy their copies, right of first sale. If they don't get rid of their copies then they are becoming distributers and copyright infringers and should be liable for that.

    1. Re:You don't quite get it by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 1

      Copyright simply shouldn't exist. It was a good idea for promoting arts in what was then a fledgling nation, but it's been abused beyond belief (Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act anyone?), and today only serves to keep wealthy people wealthy.

      I'll never subscribe to the idea that, if I hear something, I can't reproduce it to my friends (and, if technology allows, if I can somehow record it, that I can't play back that pristine copy to friends). It's stupid beyond belief that people try to push this "intellectual property" bullshit. "Yer, it's my thought, give it back!" Crazy.

      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
  228. Re:btefnet by Ineffable+27 · · Score: 1

    I also hope Usenet continues to be ignored, but are you sure about this?? -- "The Usenet supplier won't monitor your downloads because shopping your customers to the **AA/Police isn't good for business."

    How many 'big' Usenet providers are there?? How much competition is there? As the number of suppliers decreases, the likelihood of caving to the lawyers goes up, I bet.

    Hooray for consolidation....

    --
    "He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once." - Steve Jobs on Bill Gates
  229. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not exactly true, The Daily Show airs on Canal+ pay-tv in the nordic countries, so I guess it is somewhat available in central Europe as well.

  230. don quixote and bittorrent: MPAA resists new tech by ahneill · · Score: 1

    The fact that we even call it an entertainment "industry" is a problem in and of itself. Sounds more like turning out mass quantity, maximizing profits than the quality thought process that most of us would hope we would be putting in our brains.

    Today the MPAA sued 6 bittorrent tracker sites, sites that post small files that basically tell a computer where to go, to many various servers, to pick up the small pieces that eventually make up a commplete file. For many people who can't schedule their life around the TV, the realization that the technology exists to actually have content available WHEN WE WANT IT is a step in the right direction. So you would have thought major media/entertainment companies would have been jumping on the bandwagon, trying to define this new distribution potential, thereby protecting there content? Instead, groups like the MPAA are engaging in ridiculous battles like the recent site shutdowns due to lawsuit. Shutting down 6 sites on the internet is, as the rightfully digusted doomd.com points out, is like using gasoline to put out a fire.

    The internet is designed to brand fools, like Dan Glickman of the MPAA, who think they can stop an entire technology, as the don quixotes of the world. I have seen a few good posts out there in the wake of this new futile attempt to deal with new technology.

    Ka D'Argo, posting at slashdot, talks about the ridiculous divide between the technology available and the entertainment industry's attempt to leverage it's crumbling monopoly. Single seasons of series of television shows going for $80, entire series for hundreds of dollars? Syndicated television shows? The availability of these is also pitiful. Where is the adoption of a new business model?

    Don't think that these actions couldn't have consequences, however. It looks like they just might not be the one's the large media companies want. As is happening with the decentralization of power in the news media market, the effort by a group like the MPAA to limit access to television that most of us already have coming into our homes, could only PUSH PEOPLE TOWARDS NEW MEDIA. For example, the Open Media Network. This is a fascinating concept, and I agree, the future of public television. Video blogs, independently created content will just grab more attention from the networks, major entertainment companies, as viewers/consumers will find, as I have begun to find, that while independently created content can sometimes not be as polished, the content itself can vastly outstrip much of the mass entertainment we see today.

    For example, to spin off into news media for a second, Netvideo, is a freely distributed internet program hosted by Jason Romney, an Australian. Romney hosts video interviews through the internet with tremendously interesting and insightful people from all around the world, the "movers and shakers" of the internet, discussing the issues that face the future of ideas and creative works, things that are changing the way we live and interact. In contrast, When I turn on CNN, they spend 24hrs./day for a week nibbling at the Vatican's heels for a new pope or chasing some woman who got cold feet prior to her wedding day. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

    It's not just news and information, either, this independent content is entertainment too. I know I'd rather watch some video of a local person in Iraq describing their life than the latest episode of a contrived "reality" tv show.

    The networks could easily distribe in a method through the internet that would only bolster their profits. One of the key issues holding this back, however, is international and local affiliates are freaked at losing something, but at some point we have to understand that the broadcast model is outdated. For instance, if NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, offered their shows over the internet, they could deliver them however they wanted to, including commercials and maybe slightly reduced quality. Hey, go for broke, have us enter our zip code, and give us LOCAL advertisements. The funny thing is, the m

  231. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I was introduced a couple of years ago to Torrents and have watched alot of shows, because of it. I also was introduced to the New Battlestar, and Dr. Who series, and am a little unnerved about this site going down.

    I have found EMULE a good alternative, it takes a little longer, but I have found all the shows I am looking for. you all should check it out go to www.the-realworld.de

    You can get lots of shows this way.

  232. Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 'War on the Homeless'

  233. It's perfectly legal. by Sir_Nigel_Hartfield · · Score: 1

    Notice that we're talking about these companies filing lawsuits guys. That's because they tried to have this stuff procecuted but the courts sais "nuh-uh". Some of these companies went after Grokster and the like a few years ago. The court ruled that as long as this was peer to peer sharing, not material downloaded from a central server, it was perfectly legal. And that's right. Peer to peer is just like loaning a CD to a friend who loans it to a friend, etc. So the best that these shmucks can do is make a nuisance of themselves. Which is what recently happened to a bunch of my buddies at UCSD. 400 individuals got slapped with personal lawsuits from record companies. It won't stand up in court, but it's the best they can do to curtail the sharing. Screw that. I paid enough money for all this hardware. Who cares it the record companies can't squeeze another 99 cents out of me for the latest Nelly download.

  234. They do have some affect on downloading behavior. by Sir_Nigel_Hartfield · · Score: 1

    There are people out there that freak out when you tell them they can just go online and grab stuff you want to see or hear for free. They panic because they just heard on the news about how the record or movie company just went after a bunch of people. So for the 'tards, it's effective.

  235. is the mpaa retarded? by echostorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, so I got this news story in my email today. They have to be kidding me - the damn sites they shut down aren't even the ones that the majority of users go to. Have you guys even heard of these sites? Probably not. I have been getting immediately aired tv programs (or even a week in advance) for over a year now, and it hasn't been by going to these sites that combined have less than 100k users. If I didn't use bittorrent, I would never get to watch The Simpsons, Shield, New Family Guy, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Everybody Loves Raymond... etc. Why? Cuz I work 3-11's thats why!I miss ALL of prime time. Bittorrent tracker sites keep me interested and watching until the day my ass becomes unemployed and watching the boob tube 24 hours a day. I could probably make a million points about fair usage here that a thousand other people have made before me, but there is no need. The point is, the MPAA isn't going after the sites that have 500k or even 300k users, they aren't sending lawsuits to their servers and they aren't doing anything more than trying to scare the big sites into closing their doors... why? Because I think they realize this is one of the grey areas where they actually have a chance of losing in a drawn out court case; most people see television programming as free anyway... you can pick it up on your tv without paying and using some tinfoil right? Its not any different to most people to watch 'CSI' on their rabbbit ears than it is to watch it on their Windows / Linux box.

  236. Re:btefnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My main thinking was this:

    Most Usenet suppliers are charging for a service, if they get a reputation for monitoring their customers and sometimes reporting them to the police, their customers will stop using their service. Even if there's only one supplier left people just won't use the service if they don't trust the provider. Who wants a log of their downloads from alt.binaries.erotica.scat turning up in court? ;)

    I'm sure most Usenet suppliers do log all downloads but they won't actively check their logs for illegal activity, they will only check if the Police come to them with a request (and if the Police are already investigating you, the data on your hard drive will probably be the most damning evidence). The key thing here is not using services that are monitored by the Police/**AA et al (like BT or Emule).

    My other reasoning was Usenet providers offer huge transfer amounts each month, usually starting at 2Gb, some even offer unlimited transfer for a higher fee. While there are a few people who might use Usenet to grab a Linux distro, I can't think of anything else that would need a transfer limit in the Gigabytes unless it's games/movies/TV shows (well probably porn too, but that's mostly legal). If the majority of your customers are downloading this sort of thing, doing anything to risk losing that customer will not be in the best interests of the company.

  237. Stealing Free Airwaves? by Lance_Lake · · Score: 1

    How can you steal something that you are able to pick up free? Doesn't the fact that TV is released as non-encrypted signals over public airwaves mean that it's effectively in the public domain?

  238. BOYCOTT MOVIES/TV!!! by rofthorax · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of books in libraries..
    What I'm suggesting more is a financial boycott, that is, if you can try not to dole out any money for movies, TV, DVD's, etc.. Just so that the MPAA will realize who their real clients are.

    --
    Just say no to license servers!!
  239. BtEfnet's torrents on ED2k by Un-Thesis · · Score: 1

    This link is being reported to be a backup of all of btefnet's torrents as of the day it went down. It appears to have several tens of thousands of torrents and is 24 MB.

    ed2k://|file|torrents.tar.bz2|24171559|75405CBDB 7F 9B97482AF94535EA8930A|/

    Bittorrent is shut down, ED2K Forever.

    --
    Promote freedom; fight fascism.
  240. Three words by bechthros · · Score: 1

    A-fucking-men to that.

  241. Any difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I were to record my favorite TV shows from my sat box onto VHS, would that be wrong?
    No.

    If I don't have a capture card, and I want my shows on my computer, is it wrong to download them from sources like BTefnet.net?
    I say no.

    If they charged a few bucks per episode legally online, I would buy them every week. But noooo... these companies are too greedy to let Family Guy go for $1.99. They want me to wait 'til 2007 and buy a DVD with the season for $60!

  242. Re:btefnet by blondygirl · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the Daily Show on the Comedy Central site is streaming video. With my Paraguayan DSL internet (which only gives me 64k) I cannot watch streaming video. So downloading the torrent for some of us is the only option.

  243. Re:btefnet by pestilence4hr · · Score: 1

    You should look into using mplayer. It has an option to dump the stream to a file, for offline viewing.

  244. article thats not just a press release reprint by flobert · · Score: 1