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."
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
It is technically legal to download anime that's copyrighted in Japan but not yet licensed in the USA.
Parent makes a good point; it's too bad the mods didn't want to hear it.
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
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.)
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.
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?
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!
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!
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.
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
I've seen that response... Hope they've read the international copywrite laws. :/
[%] Cingular Ringtones
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).
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."
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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--
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.)
...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!"
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?
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.
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.
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
The technology is there already. TV networks need to wake up and start doing this now.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
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 (=
No, this is
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...
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
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.