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."

29 of 810 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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?

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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!!!

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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
  15. 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!"
  16. 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.

  17. 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 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.