MPAA Cracking Down on TV Torrent Sites

sallgeud writes "It appears the other shoe has dropped and the MPAA is now going after sites which link to torrents of TV shows. The beef with redistributing copyrighted material seems to make sense... but I'm wondering if it makes a difference in the world of DVR. The vast majority of downloads appeared to be of content that is broadcast free over the airwaves. I'm wondering how much different this is than going after Tivo? Would these sites have been hit with lawsuits if they had stuck to purely over-the-air broadcasts?"

Comments

Is that a serious question?

[Tim C]

Tivo allows personal time-shifting of a broadcast program so you can watch it at a more convenient time. BitTorrent allows distribution of programs to others.

IANAL, but I suspect that fair use allows for the former but not the latter. In either case, the difference should be clear, in both intent and in practice.

Re:Is that a serious question?

[elbobo]

One of the main problems is people have come to expect free downloading of music and video. Why should I pay when I can get it from eDonkey or BitTorrent for free? In the music realm, iTunes has made some inroads into legal, pay downloads. But free still trumps $1 per track for a lot of people.

I think this is one of the fundamental misinterpretations of online music/video piracy.

I don't believe it's about price or "free" at all, I believe it's about convenience. The question that people ask themselves is, "What is the easiest way to get what I want? Which is the path of least resistance? What offers the most convenience?"

Traditionally it's been easier to just go out and buy the product rather than hunt out an illegal copy, but the internet has turned that on its head. The affected industries have to get their acts together and turn things back around to how they should be. Initiatives like the iTunes Music Store go a long way towards achieving that, but nothing practical is being offered for TV/movies as of yet.

Much better solutions

[Pharmboy]

I don't expect to give up downloading TV shows anytime soon. The real kicker is that if the broadcasters would instead offer bittorents of the shows (with a few commercials to pay for them) at the same time they are broadcast, they would beat the groups that are ripping them soley for "respect" from peers. AND they would have the control they are so desperately seeking.

TV shows are about the only thing I download via bittorrent (and a few books), mainly because I can't watch when shows are on, and it is more convenient than my DVR. The shows I watch already have logos from TV stations, etc., why not run a "drink coke" banner at the bottom from time to time instead?

If they were really smart, they would also provide their own bittorrent tracker server (complete with Google/Overture ads), making it unnecessary for me to go to other sites and be "tempted" to download music and movies as well.

Re:Much better solutions

[Babbster]

One problem with the idea of networks torrenting their own shows is that they would then be in competition with their own affiliates. Remember, the broadcast networks own relatively few television stations themselves and have to rely on agreements with TV stations owned by others in order to show their programming at all. If the network starts distributing their content outside this system, they risk the whole thing crashing down on them...not to mention that there are probably clauses in the contracts which state explicitly that the network can't use alternate means to distribute their shows in the area of each affiliate. The internet, of course, is available in every affiliate area and a network torrent system would end up the basis of many lawsuits.

Death to Mickey Mouse, long live the Marx Brothers

[shanen]

I feel like I'm restating the obvious, but the MPAA is perverting the intention of copyright. The idea was to *ENCOURAGE* creativity, not to maximize anyone's profits in perpetuity. The idea was that you would get some profits for your creative efforts, not that you would forever strangle anyone who tried to create after you.

Mickey Mouse is the poster child for one part of the abuse. In Mickey's case, they are extending the copyright forever so that they can continue to milk the mouse. If you don't like mouse milk, that's just too effing bad. They have also greatly extended the coverage of copyright against derivative work, again to keep the mouse (and friends) alive and "uncontaminated".

The Marx Brothers represent a different kind of abuse. That's a case where they use (extended) copyright to suppress distribution of works that ought to be in the public domain. In this case, those works would compete very favorably with the tripe Hollywood produces--so they avoid the competition by suppressing those golden oldies.

Who said crime doesn't pay?

Well yes, they would...

[Gilesx]

Not to burst anyone's bubble here, but I'm thinking that those sites probably would have still been busted even if they stuck to free to air content.

How many TV torrents still contain the original advertisements they aired with? I'm thinking in the region of.. hmm... zero? Now, how is all this "free to air" television subsidised? Oh? Advertisements?

Do you see now?

Re:Well yes, they would...

[bani]

remember you're talking about an industry that has publically stated they feel that going to the bathroom for a potty break during commercials is theft of revenue and "immoral".

Re:So what?

[1u3hr]

Not everybody checks slashdot with religious zeal. By having dupes the important stories can be shown to those who missed it (cause maybe the first posting was at a wierd time).

Stories aren't reposted because they're "important". They're reposted because the editors are careless and didn;t notice. If I can't read Slashdot for a few days, I just browse through the "Older Stuff" stories linked conveniently on the right side of the front page.

I get annoyed at this because Slashdot regularly asks me to moderate posts, to improve the quality of the site, but provides no usable mechanism to moderate the editors. Even the email address on is encouraged to send warnings of dupes and errors is rarely answered, sometimes bounces, and is ignored in almost all cases. So now I rarely boither to mod at all; why should I care about the quality of the site when the editors obviously don't? In work I've found it similarly disheartening to be concerned with quality when the managemnent doesn't give more than lip service to the concept.

Re:So what?

[Jerf]

Many many moons ago, I lost my mod privs for modding up the "post of death". I did it because I got a hackerly thrill out of adding my mod points to a post with literally thousands expended on it.

It actually made Slashdot more fun; I am the honorable type and felt compelled to use the mod points responsibly (when not enjoying multi-K pileons), so I browsed at -1, etc. Since "the community" told me to screw off, I'm relieved of that responsibility.

Just chill and enjoy the ride. Barring a major change, Slashdot ought to be superceded or unrecognizable in two years. The owners are making a lot of very classic mistakes, and they refuse to recognize them as such because they result in this slow, long term degradation of respect, not the instantaneous loss of revenue. By the time they understand, it will be too late, Slashdot will already have passed the inflection point. Slashdot may never "die", but I'm sure it will make a hell of a lot less money.