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."

145 of 810 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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!!
    8. 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
    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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...

    13. 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?"

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

      There's PORN on the INTERNET?

    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.
    19. 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.
  2. 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."

  3. 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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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?
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

  4. 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 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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."
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.)

    10. 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?

    11. 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...

    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    16. 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.
    17. 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
    18. 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.

    19. 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?
  5. Can't wait..... by mangus_angus · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Can't wait..... by certel · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  6. 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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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!

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Yikes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  9. 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 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.
    2. Re:True story by moe613 · · Score: 5, Funny

      ill be 18 in 4 months.

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

    3. 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

    4. 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.

  10. 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?

  11. 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: 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?

  12. 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 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.
  13. 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!
  14. 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.

  15. 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 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.

  16. 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 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.

  17. 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!!!

  18. 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 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.

  19. 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 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
  20. 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.

  21. 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"

  22. 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.

  23. 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: 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."

  24. Re:Hello, Friends by pomo+monster · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  25. 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.
  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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?
  29. 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.
  30. 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.

  31. 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.
  32. 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!
  33. 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.

  34. 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...

  35. 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).

  36. 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.

  37. 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...

  38. 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)
  39. 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
  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. Mod parent up! by Burning1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Grandparent was litterally asking for it.

  43. Re:Ah crap... by Kris_J · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Australian here. Looks like I've watched my last Daily Show for a while.

  44. 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?).

    --
  45. 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!

  46. 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.

  47. 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!"
  48. 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)
  49. 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.

  50. Re:what? sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can cup my balls. Any good with the shaft?

  51. 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!"
  52. 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 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.

  53. 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.
  54. 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.

  55. 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?

  56. 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
  57. 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.
  58. 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 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?
  59. 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
  60. 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?

  61. 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.

  62. 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!
  63. 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 (=

  64. 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!
  65. 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...

  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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.