Time on "Pirates of Primetime" 459
binarydreams writes "Time has a pretty decent article on the capturing and trading of television shows on the Internet. The author gives a very good description of the capturing process, the people who enjoy the results, the future of PVR (focusing on the Replay 4000) and why the TV and movie industries are scared."
This is just more of the TV industry coming to grips
with what happened to the music industry. But it's
important that the mainstream learns about it.
TV Shows being pirated (Score:5, Informative)
To get an idea of the amount of TV shows being pirated, and the speed at which they get ripped take a look here [isonews.com].
Re:TV Shows being pirated - what's really scary (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not as much the fact that people are pirating, but that these people would rather download the numerous episodes of ALF than watch what's currently on TV.
Hollywood has been leading the best prevention against piracy by producing stuff that nobody would want to own in the first place. Who knows, maybe writing a good script would be seen as a breach of the DMCA because it would promote the desire to own and copy.
Re:TV Shows being pirated (Score:2)
first the quality of the shows (example my collection of the entire shown invader ZIm episodes.) is horrible.. VHS quality at best. Which by the way is legal? I can tape the shows and trade them legally. and the shows are not being re-broadcast or sold for a profit which takes the profit from the company.
They have to OFFER something to lose sales of it. and they do not and never will offer the invader Zim collection on DVD (start your subscription for only $29.95 and recieve 2 more episodes each month... bullcrap)
nope, they lie, and they lie horribly.
Fair Use (Score:2, Informative)
I hope that they can learn from the mistakes that the music industry made.
my 0010 cents
Difference from music warez being... (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank God! (Score:2, Informative)
Piracy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Its gotten so bad, I actually watched a History Channel show on the history of hand tools over the shows that were on CBS, NBC, Fox and ABC and I wouldn't even know what to use those hand tools for! Once the Olympics go off the air, I most likely won't be watching NBC anytime soon.
Re:Piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're willfully missing the point. It's not popularity that makes money for the networks, it's advertising, which online pirates strip out, or VHS/DVD purchases, which *probably* aren't being made.
Unlike MP3 swapping, there's a HUGE difference between watching a quarter-screen pixelated copy of a show and seeing it on my 32" television, but that's clearly not a big deal for many viewers, and in any case, it WILL change as technology and bandwidth progresses.
The networks are losing money on this, and that's why they're upset. They don't care if you watch it, they only care if you watch it with the commercials in.
Re:Piracy? (Score:2)
I haven't paid any attention to TV ads in years. Even before I got my TiVo, I used VCRs to timeshift everything I watched...and I buzzed right past all of the ads. What makes the network execs think anybody is watching the ads at all?
Re:Piracy? (Score:2)
So what's better: someone seeing the program and becoming a fan or someone not seeing the program at all?
Re:Piracy? (Score:2)
Whichever the content owner decides.
Re:Piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is the fundamental problem with the TV networks.
In the 50s and 60s, you watched networks. Just as there were Ford people and there were Chevy people, there were people who watched "NBC" or "CBS" or "ABC".
Today, I don't know anyone who gives a rat's fried patoot what network, nor even what channel, their programming is on. We watch shows, not networks.
And that's why the woman in the article won't pay for HBO. She doesn't want "HBO". She only wants to watch "Sex in the City", and if she could pay $1/month to watch 1 hour of HBO's programming (that is, the new episode of "Sex in the City") a week, she would.
But she can't. Because HBO doesn't work like that. Because the cable system doesn't work like that. The whole notion of "broadcasting" (and this includes "niche channels") is that you fill the pipe 24/7 with content, charge your viewers for all that content, even though they only want one or two shows you offer.
It's not quite the same as the RIAA model of "put one good song on the album, the rest can be filler", because your idea of filler might be my idea of content. (That is, some folks watch highbrow channels for the Shakespeare, others for the war documentaries, still others for the Red Dwarf reruns ;-)
But the practical effect is the same -- an end user buys a subscription to a channel in order to get the hour or two of "good stuff" per week that they care about.
Cable makes it worse, of course, in that underlying technical restrictions have created buyers used to buying "packages" of 10-20 channels at a time in order to get the 2-3 channels that carry the 4-5 shows you watch. It's not like buying a whole CD to get the one song you want, it's like buying a whole box set!
Now comes the 'net - we bypass the high-level middlemen (cable/satellite operators) and the low-level middlemen ("channels") to allow an individual to get the product ("shows") they actually want. In effect, the 'net makes the traditional distribution system ("shows" aggregated onto "channels" and sold in "packages of channels") obsolete.
The woman who says "Fuck that!" and downloads her Sex in the City isn't saying "Fuck copyright".
She's saying "Fuck the dumb distribution system".
Re:Piracy? (Score:2)
Bzzzt. It's not like stealing your wallet. It's like making an unauthorized copy of your wallet.
IP 'Piracy' is not theft. It is copyright infringement.
Re:Piracy? (Score:2)
Like copying credit card numbers and magstripes, you mean?
Re:Piracy? (Score:2)
Re:Piracy? (Score:2)
What you describe is called copyright infringement. You describe the basis behind why copyright infringement is not legal. Your particular example may or may not fall under fair use. Either way, it still isn't theft. Now, reread this paragraph again and again until you understand.
Re:Piracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Please explain how copying a TV Show is the same as someone hitting me on the back of the head and stealing my wallet? I don't open my wallet up to everyone that walks by and show them the content within it. I keep it inside my coat pocket so it is protected from prying eyes. TV Networks are sending an unencrypted signal through the air and are begging me to pick it up and view it. There is no disclaimer or contract before the show that requires me to view the commercials. If they don't want you to copy the show, the should either encrpyt it or sell it on a media they can control.
Also, does a TV network have a right to control my memory of the show so they can make sure I remember the commercials along with the plot line?
Re:Piracy? (Score:2)
Guess so. All the "women" on TV and in the Music Industry are starting to look like jailbait -- or maybe they all are. I am now a "Thirty-Something" and no one in Hollywood and TV Land gives a damn if I am entertained anymore.
Re:Piracy? (Score:2)
Paradox (Score:2)
I wonder where TWAOL is planing to take what they've got...
Re:Paradox (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what the figures are for the studios, but I did see a comment in a UK PC magazine once that to produce the same content without any advertising at all would increase the shelf price from £5 to £25. Quite a hike. Would you be prepared to see your cable/satellite bill go up by the same percentage just to lose the adverts? Plus the additional amount to cover the costs of those who say stuff it and cancel their subscriptions?
I'm guessing that for the majority of viewers the answer will be a resounding "NO WAY!"
Re:Paradox (Score:2)
What's left? Pay TV! Y'know, like we have right now on digital cable - watch a show or six hours of shows (depending) for $2.95. Or series just like "Sex..." on HBO, produced within a budget but still popular.
Exactly how is this a bad thing? If this were to replace the 'basic cable' service my bill would drop to $3 a week, $12 a month - alot less than what it is right now. Even for the addicted, say 18 hours a week, that's still only $36 a month. (Anyone who watches more TV than this needs to be cleansed from the gene pool).
Not only would you have pay-per-view and pay-per-block, but specific pay-per-channel as well - again like HBO and Showtime. Once more, how is this bad?
Oh, and if anyone argues that this somehow 'disenfranchises' the poor, please - pull your head out of your ass before you walk off that cliff. There is no Constitutional right to entertainment, and the "Jeff Corwin" show hardly counts as 'necessary education that can't be obtained elsewhere' (although he's certainly nice to look at).
Max
Relative statistics? (Score:5, Insightful)
it would be interesting to see the % fall in this versus the general economic downturn. otherwise its a meaningless statement.
Re:Relative statistics? (Score:2)
remember this is media, and they are talking to the general public.. accuracy and truth have no meaning in the news when it comes to statistics. It never has and never will. The truth doesn't sell.
A missed opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the prevalence of trading shows that there is a demand for this stuff. Why not make it available for sale? Who says that shows need to be off-the-air for a couple of years before they're made available? Who says that only the most popular shows should be made available?
Why isn't the distribution process streamlined so that printing 5000 DVDs for the 5000 people who want to see "Cop Rock" is still profitable?
There are plenty of TV shows that I would gladly purchase on DVD. I was happy to see "Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 1" on DVD -- not because I want to buy it, but because I'm hoping that means that shows like "Kojak, Season 1" make it.
I suspect that the media companies are at a crossroads. Do they sell their content and possibly ruin the repeat-TV market, or do they hold it close and risk people trading it among themselves?
Ralph Slate
Re:A missed opportunity (Score:2)
Re:A missed opportunity (Score:5, Informative)
Syndicators, that's who. The real money in producing t.v. shows is getting enough episodes of a show ordered that you can then turn around and sell them as a syndication package.
Think about it-- the major networks really only supply prime-time programming-- 8p.m. to about midnight. Everything else that shows on network affiliates (and non-affiliate stations) is either locally generated programming or syndicated stuff. That's why you get The Simpsons or ST:TNG showing every day on a given channel-- because the channel bought the syndication rights for that package of shows. Syndications of popular shows can reap a bloody fortune in revenues for the production company-- in the hundreds of millions of dollars for a reasonably successful comedy. (Typically because an affiliate in every market will buy a syndication package for a successful show, rather than having the network pay for it once for first-run.)
Anyway, the reason shows aren't released to video shortly after they finish their first-run is because the money to be made in syndication is so staggering. If Paramount sold ST:TNG videos of the most recent season's episodes 6 months after the end of each season, they'd have a much harder time pitching the entire series in syndication to the local stations-- after all, the fans of the show (who translate to eyeballs watching the local station's advertising) already have permanent copies of the episodes that are being offered as a syndication package.
That's why you're only seeing Seasons 1 & 2 of The Simpsons on DVD now: because the syndication package that features those episodes doesn't command much of a price from local stations any more. Fox (or, more accurately, Gracie Films, the producer of the show) waits to release videos until it has gotten maximum value from syndication of those episodes because syndication offers a bigger revenue stream than video sales. For shows that don't (or won't) make it into syndication (typically, you need in the neighborhood of 100 episodes or about 5 seasons to make it attractive to an affiliate who will run 5-7 shows a week), a video release can occur much faster. (Witness South Park, which Comedy Central knows damn well won't run on a broadcast station because of its content. You can buy videos of SP now, because those sales aren't cannibalizing potential syndication revenue.) Of course, if a show wasn't popular enough to survive for 100 episodes, it's unlikely to have a big enough market to make a video release financially viable. There may be 10,000 people who loved the live-action Tick series, but even if all 10,000 people buy the DVD set, will that cover the cost of pressing and marketing the discs?
Re:A missed opportunity (Score:2)
I'm not sure it is. If the government or anybody else with a security camera has the right to record what goes on in public and more or less do what they like with it (distribute it to the Discovery Channel for documentaries, for example), why is it then illegal to record a free public broadcast and treat it similarly?
I could understand doing this with cable and DSS broadcasts, since the encryption and/or physical wire dictate a private medium. But VHF and UHF television broadcasts? Hell, the FCC says I have a right to tune in to any signals that reach me and as long as I don't have to decode it I'm free to observe the content, whether it be military communications, cordless phone conversations, Morse code conversations on HAM radio, or Enterprise on UHF channel 54.
Daria on DVD...PLEASE!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I want to see the entire 5-season run of "Daria" on DVD. So do a lot of other people. There is an organized drive to get "Daria" out on DVD: it can be found at http://www.the-wildone.com/dvdaria/ [the-wildone.com].
One way this can be helped along is by buying the DVD of "Is It Fall Yet?" the first "Daria" TV movie. Research by "Daria" fans in the UK has found that even though the DVD is marked "Region 1" that it is in reality regionless, able to be played on any DVD player or DVD-ROM drive. This is a Good Thing (tm) and suggests that anyone, anywhere in the world should go out and get the DVD.
I would give a link here but there are too many people with too many beefs against too many online merchants to where if I linked to anyone I'd get people upset, and Powell's doesn't seem to carry DVDs anyway. Just go to your favorite video online site and search for "Is It Fall Yet?" Or ask at your local video store. Since Viacom still owns Blockbuster (ugh!) they might be a likely suspect.
Another TV product that I would love to see on DVD is the TNT original movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley." Time-Warner has put it out on VHS but has yet to put it out on DVD.
The media companies need to either start RAPIDLY putting out TV content on DVD or face more of this so-called piracy. I thought that the Sony vs. Universal Pictures decision found that there was a right to not only time-shift TV programs but tape trade stuff taped off the air provided no money changes hands! So what's the fsckn prob? No profit is being made on this, and most of these programs don't have a legit video/DVD pipeline anyway. No bread is being taken out of anyone's mouth.
Re:Daria on DVD...PLEASE!!!! (Score:2)
Re:A missed opportunity (Score:2)
nyimes article (Score:2)
2002-01-17 13:49:49 Black Hawk Download (articles,news) (rejected)
URL (Score:3, Informative)
You just have to know the address, then you can get in through the free registration method. Although Google follows the nytimes.com robots.txt, enough people link to articles that the search engine has records for the URLs.
awful (Score:3, Informative)
That makes all the difference in upcoming lawsuit. I find it hard to believe Sonicblue people didnt stress that out to him.
Copyright Trouble Of The Week (Score:4, Informative)
Fair use? (Score:2)
By the way, do "cappers" remove the commercials when they are digitizing it? I'm gonna have to check into this...
Re:Fair use? (Score:2)
You could "check into this" by reading the article, which says it takes about 5 minutes to strip out the ads, and an hour to compress the file suitable for distribution.
Re:Fair use? (Score:2)
By reading this post, you agree to pay me $50.00
That is, unless you believe that saying something doesn't necessarily make it true.
This should be an interesting battle.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So the question they've got to answer is: why is digital media different from analog (i.e. tape) media?
Like I said, should be interesting....
Why is the industry scared? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. People who have already seen the show and want to view it again at a later date. These people have already seen the ads from the commercial sponsers from the first airing.
2. People who are the fan base of the show. These people archive the episodes for their own enjoyment. These people also probably view the shows during their original airing rather than waiting for the show to appear somewhere over the internet.
Both populations of people have probably seen the original airing of the program with the commericals in place. The only valid concern I can think of from the TV industry is that sponsers may not pay for ads during reruns of a particular show if viewers already have copies of it to watch. But how many of us sit down to watch a rerun of a episode we have already seen? Unless it rocked, most of us I imagine probably end up surfing the TV during breaks anyways. Reruns really only serve the population of people who didn't see the episode in the original airing. It seems to me that the industry wants to keep this population away from recorded TV shows.
Re:Why is the industry scared? (Score:2)
3. People who download show just for the sake of downloading
I've run in to plenty of people who download TV shows and movies they don't watch, but they download them anyway just to increase the size of their collection.
Re:Why is the industry scared? (Score:2)
My thought was always: I need to store/move/keep organized all that crap. I'm only asking for things I WANT.
You forgot number three (Score:5, Insightful)
...and a third: people who don't get the channels, or can't rent or afford to buy the DVDs, but want to watch the shows all their friends are raving about.
Don't pretend that third group doesn't exist. The article mentions "Sex in the City" and "Friends," but if you go online you don't have to look far to find shows and movies that are only available in recorded format. People wouldn't be swapping ripped copies of anime imports or "Shrek" -- not available on TV but expensive on tape/DVD -- if that was the case.
more aggressive commercial technology (Score:2)
Re:Why is the industry scared? (Score:2)
You mean then networks would have to come up with original content more often than two months out of the year? It's the end of the world, I tell you!
"Reruns really only serve the population of people who didn't see the episode in the original airing."
Their intent is to serve the networks. They get a profit from the commercials without having to pay the production costs of a new episode. Just a few bucks here to pay for the guy playing the glorified VCR. Personally I think that if advertisers pay the same for reruns as they do for original episodes then they're getting screwed.
Why the industry is scared and why you should be. (Score:3, Insightful)
Their only recourse is to own the internet itself and forbid all "servers". Gee, that kind of looks like the new Cox.net Terms of Service. Time/Warner AOL ToS anyone? I suppose the Bells will co-operate if the cable companies keep people from using their bandwith for long distance voice comunications. M$ might make some money collecting extortion fees from various media companies to protect content with the new XP EULA and Digital Rights Denial Patents. Looky there, all the big publishing interests CAN be happy with new technology after all. What a deal, all use of your bandwith is stripped, you computer is a TV.
Kinda sucks life. All I want to do is run my own mail, and share pictures of my two month old girl with my friends and family. No can do, those tools make me a Pirate and endanger the profits of major publishers. I don't watch TV.
poor Vdub (Score:2, Funny)
Thanks Time magazine (Score:2, Funny)
Napster (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Napster (Score:2)
A simple solution ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Trying to enforce at what time a person watches a show is silly. Not to mention controlling and repressive.
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
We are not the customer (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone else noted, in the current scheme of television production and distribution, we the viewers are NOT the customer. We are the product that is harvested, packaged, and delivered to the real customer: the advertisers.
Once you understand that, the rest makes perfect sense.
Re:We are not the customer (Score:2, Insightful)
Creative Business Models (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolutely right.
The reason the Copyright Cartels (specifically the Television, Movie, and Recording industries) are running scared is because none of their current leadership has any skills at running a business in anything other than a coercive, cartel form.
Alternatives do exist, but they either don't have the imagination to explore them, or are so addicted to their own coercive power that they would rather destroy the most promising, democratizing and empowering technology to emerge in the last 100 years, the Internet, and our constitutional rights to free expression, rather than change their business models.
What business model(s) would work, you ask? For television (and, for that matter, movies) offering commercia laden television programs for free, exactly as they do now. Only, except requiring cable providors or broadcast stations to disseminate their product, they can do so via the internet (and without middlemen).
Offer the same content for a nominal fee (say $1.00, or 1 Euro) without any commercial content.
Mark each downloaded copy with registration information (the user's name and IP address they downloaded to). That is all the copy protection that is required, and it works beautifully (if not perfectly) in the digital world of software. People are much more reluctant to share illegal copies of software that are marked with their identity in some fashion than they are anonymous products (such as clean rips from a firewire port).
None of this is perfect, but it is very workable and people would eat it up. Their revinues would, if anything, increase over time.
Similar approaches could be used by the recording industry, if they were intelligent enough to get their heads out of their asses and stop persuing copy prevention schemes which have been demonstrated both empirically and mathematically to NOT work, and instead embed the purchaser's name and/or ip in the audio stream itself.
Unfortunately this requires imagination, flexibility, and both business and technical savvy, something that is woefully lacking at the upper levels of the copyright cartels. They would rather simply purchase laws from our cheaply sold congress, and shred the constitution in the process.
Just? (Score:4, Funny)
the music industry. But it's important that the mainstream learns about it."
Yeah, that music industry thing was no big deal.
tcd004
My (off-topic) Experience with Jack Valenti (Score:2, Offtopic)
This is off-topic, but when I was 9 or 10 I desperately wanted to get into films like 'Apocalypse Now' and the 'Deer Hunter.' I didn't want to go accompanied with my parents (I did, eventually) and so took the opportunity to write Mr. Valenti and short (and not irate) letter about problems with the MPAA rating system. Now, say what you will about a 10 year old going to see 'Apocalypse Now' (and make cracks about it not being a good film anyway, blah blah blah) it was one of those formative experience films -- and I understood that even before seeing it.
Anyway, I had the letter proofed by various people (my dad taught English at a local college, so it was easy to get a bunch of opinions on whether or not the letter was 'too shrill' or 'too juvenile') and wrote a variety of drafts. The gist was this: that the MPAA rating system (before the days of PG-13) as it existed in 1979 was unfair: that it should be up to parents whether or not their children could go see a movie unaccompanied. My parents *wanted* to see 'Apocalypse Now' and 'The Deer Hunter' and 'Coming Home' and -- a few years before -- 'Saturday Night Fever' -- so it wasn't a matter of me not being able to go -- it was one of those 'on principle' things: who is this MPAA and why are they making rules for parents on what they can and can't do with their kids? (Kids can go to movies -- but only if their parents are there, too. To me, it was absurd. I mean, I was watching stuff like 'Wild Strawberries' and 'The Bicyle Thief' and 'Walkabout' (yeah, I know, it sounds pretentious -- blah blah blah -- but that's the sort of world I lived in -- lots of good films, good books, and I loved every minute of it) so it was absurd that some guy named Jack Valenti was telling me I couldn't see certain films by myself.
Anyway, I wrote the letter. Wrote many drafts. Finally nailed it. It was a page long. Not shrill. Thoughtful, but fim. I mailed it off to him. (A friend of a friend got his actual address.)
And I *never* heard back. Not a peep. Not a form letter. Nothing.
I thought: well, fuck him. I knew it was a dumb thing to do -- sending off a letter of complaint. And I knew even then that I was raging into the chasm. There was nothing down there except the sound of my own voice. I knew that.
But I at least expected a response. Some inkling that after all the trouble I went through he'd at least "took note" of my complaint and thanked me for writing and understood my frustration but, ya know, that's just the way it was.
What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Not much except for the Valenti link. The fact that it's still -- after all these years -- Jack Valenti telling us what we can and can't do. And why we're wrong doing what we're doing. It's Hilary Rosen, too, over at the RIAA -- I know that.
But somehow my little experience 15 years (I finally realized) is emblematic of the whole problem with corporate giants: that no one, in the end, gives a fuck. The corporations don't, at least. The politicians try, sure. But they're hamstrung by Valenti and Rosen and all the lawyers fighting the 'Bleak House'-like endless legal battle: battling for years and years. The point of the case is all but forgotten. But they're still suing, still collecting their fees.
That first lesson in cynicism still rankles me to this day. I wonder if he ever even read my little letter.
Re:My (off-topic) Experience with Jack Valenti (Score:2)
As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. (Score:5, Informative)
I was interviewed for this article last week and I was sorely disappointed to read how sensationalistic is was towards sharing shows with the ReplayTV 4000 likening us to Napster. Napster traded what was known copyrighted material, bought by home users and illegally copied and sent to others. RTV on the other hand is basically a digital VCR, or timeshifting device. It is currently legal to timeshift, send to friends, and receive shows this way. No different than user a standard VCR and even slower depending on file size. The biggest complainers should be advertisers who pay big money to be on Friends. But really,I don't agree with that either. They take a chance that I will see there ad anyways. There is nothing preventing me with regular TV to just leave the room or turn off the TV when ads come on.
Check out my site Planet Replay [planetreplay.com] for more information on Replay show sharing.
Re:As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. (Score:2)
Napster was an index of file names and locations. That's all.
The judge in that case was a dedicated champion of intellectual property laws, even if she had to create some for them to violate. She made a spectacular fool of herself by showing ignorance of the technology and personal animosity towards the defendants.
And the damage she created spreads outwards, like a tsunamic shock wave.
Re:As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. (Score:2, Informative)
First of all, the Napster trial is ongoing, so the legality or illegality of that network is still up in the air, as is the legality or illegality of the actions of its users. Judge Patel's rulings thus far have concerned the preliminary injunction that was, after much wrangling in the federal appeals court, finally put in place. She reached some initial conclusions that may or may not point to the final outcome of the trial, but the legality of the service is not established. Further, the company (last time I checked) offers as one of its key arguments the notion that sharing among users is protected by both the Audio Home Recording Act (1992?) as interpreted in the Diamond v MPAA (?) case and fair use doctrine of the overall copyright code. Someone please correct me if this legal stance has changed, I haven't followed the case closely since the injunction came down.
Second, Napster also used a time-shifting argument in fighting the preliminary injunction. It became clear in both the district and appeals courtrooms (I was there) that the judges found this a bit ridiculous, as the focus and technical structure of Napster was not oriented toward, say, sharing a file at home and downloading it at work, but rather distributing it to others.
Most importantly, is it reasonable to call the Replay 4000's sharing and especially timeshifting functions "no different than using a standard VCR?" I doubt even Sonicblue's own marketing department would agree to that bland assesment of their product, and I suspect that in an Amazon or epinions review you might disagree with yourself here. In terms of timeshifting, you have a device that is capable of skipping over commercials with a new degree of automation and of capturing a massive volume of shows and of doing so with, again, a new degree of automation.
As for sharing, it is quite different to be able to beam something to someone rather than to haul a tape to them physically. What's more, what you are beaming is much more easily placed onto a computer hard disk and shared at large, albeit by circumventing controls in the Replay unit. Either one of the traits taken by itself widely expands the circle of "friends" you are able to share with, and it is the line between friendly or scholarly sharing and mass distribution that is at the heart of the Napster case. The line is only a little bit more clear, IMHO, with Replay.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your legalargument, but you seem a bit quick to dismiss the paradigm-shifting capabilities of Replay, similarities (if only superficial) to Napster (and IIRC the article in question was talking not just about Replay but about how others use/abuse its files) and those who finance the production of free television shows (setting legal issues aside, I like the fact that while I'd have to pay ~$20 a month for Sopranos I get West Wing and 60 Minutes for free, and the chance society at large might watch just somewhat fewer commercials could harm the free programming model). I think it is possible to make a much stronger case for the machine if you attempt to grapple with these issues.
Cheers
R
Re:As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. (Score:2)
It is faster to time shift and send a show via VCR and snail mail. Thats a fact for 90% of us ReplayTV users. Im currently receiving a show now thats 1.5 GB for 1/2 hour. With cable modem upload speeds and being able to send more than one show at a time it will take over 4 days for me to receive this file. I can't even pull down 2 shows at once (a bit silly, you can send many at 128k up, but only receive one at 1.5m down). Ive had my RTV for 3 months now and have received exactly 2 shows.
I'd also like to theorize a bit for the future. Even when broadband gets faster (say 2-3 years), TV still has the upper hand by only broadcasting in HDTV. Now that 1.5GB file is 15GB and we're all back to waiting 4-7 days for the episode of Sex and the City.
Commercial Advance is great when it works, its my favorite feature. But its such a pain in the butt when it doesn't. Ive had it skip portions of a show without my knowledge.
There have been some great responses to my post, thanks to everyone, its been an interesting read.
Re:As the owner of Planet Replay, my views. (Score:2)
What are the standard formats? MPEG-4? DIVX? Other?
How much degradation in content is there? Is it a postage-size stamp video or am I seeing VHS quality (bad but viewable) or DVD quality (great) content?
What's the common file sizes? Are we talking 300 Megs per 1/2 hour?
Do all these boxes have a standard format or do I need to translate the format from ReplayTV once it's recorded?
Where's the commonest source for this stuff? Morpheus? Gnutella? .RU websites?
Thanks,
-Russ
C&D letter from the MPAA (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps instead of posting shows, 60-120 people should independantly review the shows and include a clip in their review.
Begin message:
----------------
From: MPAA@copyright.org
To: dmca@giganews.com
Subject: [DMCA #1604] Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Motion Pictures (Reference#: XXXXXX)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 18:23:00 (GMT)
Errors-To: dmca-admin@lists.texas.net
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0b8
Precedence: bulk
List-Id:
X-BeenThere: dmca@lists.texas.net
X-Mailing-List:
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.
15503 VENTURA BOULEVARD
ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436
UNITED STATES
Anti-Piracy Operations
PHONE: (818) 728 - 8127
Email: MPAA@copyright.org
Tuesday, February 19, 2002
Name: dmca@giganews.com
E-mail: dmca@giganews.com
ISP: Giganews
Via Fax/Email
RE: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Motion Pictures
Site/URL: usenet://xjosh@GigaNews.Com/ATTN Mike - Need anyall of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02
Reference#: XXXXXX
Date of Infringement: 2/15/2002 4:32:43 PM GMT
Dear dmca@giganews.com:
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) represents the following motion picture production and distribution companies:
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
Disney Enterprises, Inc.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation
TriStar Pictures, Inc.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
United Artists Pictures, Inc.
United Artists Corporation
Universal City Studios, Inc.
Warner Bros., a Division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.
We have received information that you are offering Internet access service to the above referenced account holder, who has utilized your services to post downloads to Usenet newsgroups of copyrighted motion picture(s) including such title(s) as:
24 (TV)
The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.
We request that you immediately do the following:
1) Take appropriate action against the account holder under your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service Agreement; and
2) Disable access from your own servers to the particular posting(s) identified above. (See also header information attached below.)
By copy of this letter, the owner of the above referenced Internet site and/or email account is hereby directed to cease and desist from the conduct complained of herein.
On behalf of the respective owners of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law.
Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California and under the laws of the United States, that the information in this notification is accurate and that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.
Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email should you have any questions. Kindly include the above noted Reference # in the subject line of all email correspondence.
We thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your prompt response is requested.
Respectfully,
Hemanshu Nigam
Vice President and Director
Worldwide Internet Enforcement
Usenet Incident Summary
User: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Host IP Address: GigaNews.Com
File Name: ATTN Mike - Need anyall of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02
Date: 2002-02-15 16:32:43 GMT
Admin Contact: abuse@GigaNews.Com
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (01/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10002
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:32:43 CST
X-Trace: sv3-wICBmtGgjmmscYY0fSTcIrblL+FBV923pVVp4HaXcXMCF
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:32:43 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956926
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (02/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:33:01 CST
X-Trace: sv3-6SFYE2+sNKkKW2V/pYjKlhC3cyfioQe2fQVtWZ8yW6Rt/
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:33:01 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956932
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (03/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:33:18 CST
X-Trace: sv3-XvJOKR3BPaWobRAIjT8dZFQhUmvVnirHFrPXwxBslInvh
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:33:19 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956939
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (04/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:33:36 CST
X-Trace: sv3-begmrjNSSIOSafscqGOZquHF0CsDvOtqwcNuBw2ce6nMf
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:33:37 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956940
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (05/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:33:56 CST
X-Trace: sv3-v81o3rUFJnBUg18c3aDUcIXWhw9YsKD+jnCp93BanRExL
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:33:56 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956943
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (06/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:34:15 CST
X-Trace: sv3-OY8d5hGot4AXVFPI/Nsa6p8ADjoOt4YON9B/KTyFGeatw
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:34:15 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956947
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (07/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:34:34 CST
X-Trace: sv3-f9JPaK5Jzi4xd2lKEaSJQW+/AlUHf7c4kf27L37ZWLany
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:34:34 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956953
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (08/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:34:54 CST
X-Trace: sv3-7VwMv5LgfMx/hC9YSY+KHTQIRM0Mj5ZmC2CL6DXtKVEcG
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:34:54 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956957
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-04!supernews.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews
From
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (09/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:35:11 CST
X-Trace: sv3-Z4wQmS+WXc0P4a1FkHsItxUfMmJWW7gcUIKRCMLynT8zC
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:35:11 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956963
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (10/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:35:32 CST
X-Trace: sv3-qlL6iW1E3V6gPVmsaF/TKIJHa6jHDjI568CXjsFmuo0kS
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:35:32 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956966
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (11/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:35:52 CST
X-Trace: sv3-g1AdtizBsR1LRGGUkxbi6QSZVeyJG5DG665Wy+gafxPb4
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:35:52 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956971
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (12/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:36:09 CST
X-Trace: sv3-i8qQIbhoMvsk7+ZqzCD8AtFjdE7sipz0V3FgrKPv0F89J
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:36:09 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956975
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (13/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:36:26 CST
X-Trace: sv3-DYUQOg54rx7R0+6HUupeFdYvlO9iipn077xgeXWECfK3/
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:36:26 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956980
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (14/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:36:43 CST
X-Trace: sv3-dFiK5CtBDB96oGQ6wwGL2klTM0beTPpNZbfPy0m36CjfA
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:36:44 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956981
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (15/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:37:02 CST
X-Trace: sv3-WmHj4ESsUG2WzMFNBsAo9zMBkPm0XlgEYUpZvIdbJ48u/
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:37:02 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956988
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (16/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:37:20 CST
X-Trace: sv3-cgiM8HRisYjl1SnkeoAml61HLK0DIzL3tMYVoDn+jr5/R
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:37:20 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956992
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.
Fr
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (17/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:37:38 CST
X-Trace: sv3-0GmsiD3Kz+CYiuJTUMCs0UCTsKlOhnJUodxm9nrV4WZF8
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:37:38 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956996
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (18/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:37:55 CST
X-Trace: sv3-HspqkfaiTVzYYb0TSRIqmQEIdSUsUwteN51DHY3gSZBe/
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:37:55 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1956998
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (19/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:38:12 CST
X-Trace: sv3-bZbNmuxCXLDGAKQSvyxNMy09Fi4tgA3dYHCQXmuNHTrlM
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:38:12 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1957004
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.
From: postmaster@127.0.0.1 (xjosh)
Sender: postmaster@127.0.0.1
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.svcd
Subject: ATTN: Mike - Need any/all of 24 12AM-1AM - 24.1x03.2AM - 3AM.SVCD.HawgSmacker.p02 (20/34)
Organization: Very Little
X-Newsposter: NNTP POWER-POST 2000 (Build 24c) - net-toys.8k.com
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 10001
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:38:30 CST
X-Trace: sv3-IWNvJciYDZCgMTjpHXdY9ELuQCk5qO2aAwPYThr835giv
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-I
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:38:30 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.binaries.svcd:1957007
------------
Re:C&D letter from the MPAA (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, thanks for all the crap.
~jeff
TV "ripping" software site (Score:2)
Actually it's called "The Definitive DVD Backup Resource"
But you can find all the software (and some pretty decent guides) which the article talks about on this site [doom9.org], it's the best there is....
pr0n (Score:2)
So when can I pay for it? (Score:2)
Re:So when can I pay for it? (Score:2)
TV on Demand (Score:3, Interesting)
This is all starting to change however. Instead of having all the shows in one central location, spread the shows around different homes across the world. This model was popularized by Napster and it works fairly well, ignoring the legal issues.
What the media needs to see is that things are changing. Their roles will become different, not obsolete. There is still plenty of room for them to make money if they embrace the technology and act fast. The music industry ignored online music distribution, and they lost out. Had they been a player in online music distribution then things would have been different and they wouldn't have to complain about lost CD sales after the demise of Napster.
If people use the technology to distribte media then that is obviously how they want to do it, and that is how they should get it. Otherwise they wouldn't use it. It's not fair to the consumer to be dictated on how they will enjoy their entertainment. If they want to watch a TV show recorded by someone else across the globe then it should be up to them.
What half arsed journalism (Score:2, Informative)
Millions? Did they even check their facts.
Don't even get me started about Farscape (Score:2, Informative)
It's all just time shifting! (Score:3, Insightful)
This means that as soon as a television station airs a program, I have the legal right to record that program to watch it at a different time or to watch it multiple times. So look at it these case situations:
A) Me pressing the record button on VCR to record content that will later be transmitted by coaxial cable to be viewed on my TV set = legal (Betamax decision)
B) Me pressing the record button on PVR to record content that will later be transmitted by coaxial cable to be viewed on my TV set = just as legal. If the courts did not see any distinction between existing media formats (Beta vs. VHS) then likewise there should be no distinction between media characteristics (magnetic tape vs. magnetic platters)
C) My friend pressing the record button on VCR to record content that will later be transmitted by coaxial cable to be viewed on my TV set = just as legal. Again, the courts did not specify that timeshifting only applied to the person making the recording. Otherwise how could sons setup the family VCR to record Days of Our Lives for technophobic mom? It's simple to see how it makes no difference who presses the button, the result is the same.
D) My friend pressing the record button on PVR to record content that will later be transmitted by coaxial cable to be viewed on my TV set = just as legal...combining case B and C.
E) My friend pressing the record button on PVR to record content that will later be transmitted by coaxial cable to be viewed on my monitor = just as legal...again the courts made no requirement for viewing device, whether tuner-ready television or single-channel monitor.
F) My friend pressing the record button on PVR to record content that will later be transmitted by CAT-5 cable to be viewed on my monitor = JUST AS LEGAL!...because yet again the courts made no requirement for trasmitting cable. Coaxial, Audio/Video, CAT-5, it's all the same as far as its purpose is concerned.
So working a step at a time from A (which we know is legal) it is trivial to show that F (what the article is talking about) is just as legal.
Now, I admit the issue is a little grey on pay-per-view and premium channels. I don't know if those things existed back in 1980 when the Betamax decision was written. But, even so, if I can go next door to watch HBO on my friend's TV, why can't I timeshift that same content to a time I'm in the comfort of my own home? Maybe my friend has HBO but I have the better TV/stereo? Again, these would be cases the courts could have mentioned but didn't.
The Internet changes nothing. My friends and I were recording shows for each other in high school back when Internet cost your $10/hour. The only difference the Internet makes is it becomes much more efficient...which is what progress is supposed to do.
- JoeShmoe
.
What happened ? (Score:2)
This is just more of the TV industry coming to grips with what happened to the music industry.
And just what is it that happened to the music *industry* ??
As far as I know, the so-called "losses" from "piracy" are all theoretical, CD sales were never as high as during Napsters prime-time and there is nothing indicating today that the music *industry* is losing anything from people downloading free music.
The argument goes something like : "50.000 copies of GroupX were downloaded, that whould otherwise have been sold for 30$ a piece, that makes 50.000*30$ = 1.500.000 $ in losses", which is nonesense.
Things to remember... (Score:3, Interesting)
They did this in the 90's with Digital Television. and Now they are doing it about PVR's and digital tv shows on the internet.
you know what? with their track record in the past of lying... it's safe to instantly assume that they are yet again
Listen up Movie and TV Industry... (Score:2)
I think a lot of people feel this way. It's a huge hassle to get TV shows off the net. The valuable ones are the ones that you can't see on TV anymore! I can't see the Tick anymore. There's 7 seasons of MST3k I'll never see on TV again. This is why people turn to the net!
This isn't widespread piracy, it's a new market opening up! It's a market where people want shows when they're ready to watch them. It's called Video On Demand. If the TV Networks would realize this, they'd very quickly find a way to meet this demand and make a profit on it. Until they do, they're going to lose to PVRs and the Internet.
I refuse to call downloading an old ep of MST3K piracy because I have NO MEANS to see it otherwise. Dilbert? Nope. The original Transformers Series? Uh uh. I can't even go buy these shows. Until you provide me with a reasonable way of acquiring these shows to watch (i.e. fill up digital cable with TV show reruns or something like TV Land), then don't go bitching about anybody doing it. Your 'lost revenue' is directly related to your own shortsightedness, not because people want to steal.
And what if you *can't* see the show? (Score:2)
I can't be the only one in this boat. The one good thing is that I now realize how useless network programming is: other than the two shows listed, Monday Night Football and the Olympics there's nothing on that I care about.
Using Slashdot as a source... (Score:3, Interesting)
But I got an email from the author of this Time article a few weeks back after I mentioned getting all of B5:Crusade on two CD's in a
From: anita_hamilton@[no, I'm not that cruel]
To: webmaster@kudla.org
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:40:35 -0500
Subject: TIME Magazine Interview request
Hi Rob,
I noticed that you posted a message on Slashdot about how you were able
to save Babylon 5 shows, convert them to digital, edit out the
commericals, and burn them onto CDs. Well, it turns out that I too am
writing a story about this topic and wondered if you could tell me more
about how you did it and how easy it was.
Would you be interested in talking on the phone for a few minutes about
it? If so, I wondered if we could talk sometime Friday or Saturday. It
should take less than 15 minutes total.
If you are interested, please let me know when is a god time for me to
give you a call.
Thanks for considering this,
Anita Hamilton
Staff Writer
TIME Magazine
212/[xxx-xxxx]
Viewing figure information (Score:2)
For those interested, in the UK, viewing figures are collated by the Broadcaster' Audience Research Board [barb.co.uk]. The system monitors minute by minute (catching commercial hopping), and it also fingerprints VCR recordings [barb.co.uk], and identifies them when they are played back. BARB figures are collated nightly, are available the very next day, and BARB also takes great care to ensure that their sample viewers are demographically representative.
The trouble is, new technology is a real pain for them. The UK has been slow to jump on the channel-explosion bandwagon, but we're there with a vengeance now. Viewing figures are currenty in a real mess [bbc.co.uk], partly because BARB was stonewalled on getting access to some set top boxes. In fact, it's an open secret that their figures for digital TV have been pretty much a big old guesstimate for the past couple of years.
Nobody likes that. BARB doesn't like it, because their subscribers wonder why they're paying for the data. The networks don't like it, because advertisers assume that bad data means viewing figures are being overestimated (which appears to be true as the new BARB system comes on line). Advertisers don't like it, because they don't know how many eyeballs they're getting (and remember, they've been getting minute-by-minute, they do know when we're channel hopping).
And now here comes digital VCR's and looking forward, DVD recorders. BARB can currently fingerprint VCR recordings, but that's a no brainer using a simple in-line analogue device, like a non-invasive Macromedia. But digital, phew, that's a whole new ballgame. Who knows how Replays and TIVO's (and other digital tech) filters or compress information. Even if you can insert the watermark, it might be stripped or mangled on replay. It might give you garbage, or it might give you the wrong show. And if your sample viewer decides to plug in a PC with TV capture/out cards, god knows what data you're going to get.
I wonder if the big issue that networks (et al) have with digital VCR's is simply that they don't know what a very small number of people are watching on them. The BARB sample size is something like 0.025% of the UK population. It's possible that they don't really give a rat's arse about what the other 99.975% of us are watching or doing with them, just that they're screwing the figures for the sample group. After all, that's really all that matters to them, materially.
The concern might not be about what we're doing with new technology, merely that it exists, and they can't keep up with it.
Decline of CD sales (Score:2)
Last year CD sales declined for the first time in a decade.
This was my favorite line in the article. It blames the decline of CD sales on music sharing, but misses the more obvious cause, Bad Economic Times. It may be true that people are getting thier music online rather than buying the CD, but given the choice between spending $20 on a CD, which probably has 1 or 2 songs I like, and buying food for my family, or puting gas in my car, guess what, I'll download the 2 songs I want, buy food for my children, and fill my gas tank. If downloading the music wasn't an option, guess what, I still wouldn't buy the CD. Maybe if the Music Industry would allow us to buy singles, either online or on CD, at a reasonable price, I'd be inclined to skip my lunch one day (my lunch, not my childrens) to buy the 1 or 2 songs I like.
This is NOT Napster (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, there really wasn't a large-market device for capturing _broadcast_ music (I've often wondered why, because the number of times I've heard something wonderful on the radio that I won't hear again for months or perhaps EVER has been waaay too many). There was no "time-shifting" argument.
Second of all, most of the available material on Napster was available for purchase. Yes, there were the live/bootleg/rare recordings, which I enjoyed as much as anyone, but I don't think that was the majority. Most of it seemed to be off of ripped CDs.
However, for a lot of the TV shows, there is no medium to rip from. The shows aren't available for purchase.
It's interesting that rather than see this as a great opportunity, TV studios get scared and try to wipe it out. There's quite OBVIOUSLY a market here, and filling it wouldn't be all that hard....
Re:Oh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Sometimes desire is not enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy: (Score:2)
Re:Sometimes desire is not enough (Score:2, Interesting)
Or is it only okay to watch it as its broadcast?
I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to understand the limits of fair use.
Re:Sometimes desire is not enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, would be. It's called time shifting and is no different than if she recorded it herself and watched it later. True, she's not paying for HBO, but her friend is, and if she went to her friend's house to watch it while it aired there would be nothing wrong with that. Borrowing her friend's VCR and recording it is essentially the same thing.
That said, what is the difference if she downloads it from Morpheus? As far as I can tell, there isn't any. I do see the concern: If everyone just downloaded it, HBO will lose money. I'm sympathetic to that. But on the other hand, it really is no different than if she drove to a friend's house and watched a recording that was made the previous night OR borrowed said recording for her own personal use - and both situations are perfectly legal.
There's got to be a common ground here somewhere, but I can't find it. Personally, I think if they flat out allowed everyone to copy their broadcasts, they'd make plenty of money. I'd even be willing to bet subscriptions would go up. Just once I would love to see someone try an open approach with their customers - I bet the popularity of the show would go through the roof, and with that popularity will come more subscriptions from people who want to watch it first, when it's broadcast.
All it takes is one person with a highly successful TV show to not only give up on copying, but to encourage it. Then you'll have real numbers. How about it, HBO? Are you willing to take the risk on "Sex and the City?"
Re:Oh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh... (Score:2, Insightful)
But how come they can't buy it at the same time it gets shown in the US? Star Trek in all its forms has al large fanbase here (Voyager is even shown on primetime, which is quite unusual for a sci-fi series here), Enterprise would surely attract enough viewers to satisfy the advertisers. It's because of ancient behaviour like this people start trading tv-shows in the first place. The tech is there to show us Europeans things that happen on the other side of the globe in no-time. But no, they can't do that with tv-series. If at times like these the US entertainment industry holds on to ancient principles, I have no objection to people doing some trading of tv-shows online.
Re:Oh... (Score:2, Insightful)
If they persist with region locks, and big time lags/price differences between regions they should expect people to bypass them and chip their DVD players and download the TV episodes they can't get.
My wife is American and I'm English, we've lived on both continents and either way one of us is downloading stuff - I'd happily pay a per episode fee to do it legally - of course I'd want to be able to keep the episode on disc or tape until it's released on DVD so streaming's not what I'm after.
I echo what others have said above, Napster happened because the music industry didn't step up to the plate with a solution of it's own. The TV networks (many of the same companies) are repeating the error.
Re:Oh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that STTNG is on DVD, may be I can buy it over the net or something, remember the show ended in 1994? It's been 8 freaking years! So if I am going to buy Enterprise I have to wait another 8 years and for the rest of the world cable provider finished showing them?
For every black market there exists a big red sign saying "Bad marketing. Huge demand exists but you are missing out of it."
Anime too (Score:4, Interesting)
They generally dub to high bitrate and high resolution DivX files, which are viewable on most any computer that has the processing power for it, but still not the same as doing it on TV. The quality of the subtitles has also become increasingly good - even professional - over the years. Of course these are watchable for anyone that speaks english, and there are other groups who work with other languages too. In fact the most difficult part is the trading and distribution of these files, which is pretty haphazard and often results in corrupted files since there is no error checking and correction, and the fact that you watch them on the computer rather than the TV (which is acceptable to many).
So the moral of the story is? TV, movie, and video producers - get your asses together and make your products available to anyone and everyone in the world at the same price simultaneously (within a week of each other), or quit your bitching. It ain't piracy if it ain't available in the first place. And if you don't want to put money into a translation, give people some way to add independent subs/dubs to it.
Re:Oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, maybe I'm just terminally dense, but...
If I tape a show with my VCR that's legal right.
If I run the TV signal though my Digital capture card and write it to CD-R that's legal too, right.
If I tape my daughters favorite show for her, because she has to work and give her the tape
when she gets home, that's legal.
If I run the TV signal though my Digital capture card and write it to CD-R and give her the CD-R when she gets home that's legal too, right.
If I don't own a VCR only a video player is it legal to have my friend video tape it for me and give me the tape when he comes in to work? (I catch the show in question, but I have to work during this weeks show)
If instead of a VHS tape, since I don't have even a video tape player he gives it to me on a CD-R. (being a proper geek I do have a computer with a CD-Rom drive) Isn't that the same thing?
If my friend lives in the same apartment with me is that legal? On the next floor? The next building? The next state? The next continent?
Why is it legal for me to tape Enterprise or the Simpsons, but illegal to have my friend in France tape it for me?
Why can I tape a show on my VCR, but if I tape it to CD-R that's a problem?
If the music stations don't want you to record songs off the radio don't air them. If television stations don't want you to tape episodes, then don't air them.
Here's one final quandary.
If I live in a frat house with 200 other guys and we get cable television service for say $50.00 USD a month. It's perfectly legal to hook it up to a large screen television and let as many people as can fit in the room all watch it together. Take that one step further, since in the US the cable company can't charge you per television for service (they are trying to get back to that with digital cable and the required decoder box rentals, that's why they'll hate to see digital cable decoders as ubiquitous as cable ready TV and VCR's), I can legally hook up 100 or more televisions to that one cable line. All legally. The fraternity can tape every episode of a television show and keep them in the television room of the frat house, now potentially thousands of people can watch this show, and we are still legal. So why is trading episodes of a show through the internet suddenly a problem?
.
Re:Oh... (Score:2, Insightful)
I would also note that if you tried to split your cable signal to 100 TVs you would probably notice some serious degradation unless you use a repeater.
Re:Oh... (Score:2)
I have yet to see a convincing argument based upon the law that deflects any of the points you've raised.
Re:Big Pussy? (Score:5, Funny)
It refers to the expanding waist lines of women that watch too much network television in America. We are getting too fat and that line is just a obscene, negative way to refer to these obese women.
Re:Big Pussy? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:TV is dying (Score:3, Interesting)
If you hadn't watched at least some of a series first, how would you know whether to download it?
This is always my big argument against totally prescriptive 'personal scheduling'. I have a TiVO box and think it's great, but still watch ordinary TV because otherwise how would I ever find out what's new in the world? If all I ever watched was what I'd told it to record, things would become stagnant very quickly.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:TV is dying (Score:2)
Fair point.
My counter-argument would be that my most common way to choose which books I want to read is to go to a bookshop and browse them. Second most common would be reviews (word of mouth or otherwise).
Now, putting my points and your points together, we seem to come up with the idea of a central repositary of TV shows from which we could randomly browse clips to decide if we liked it. I could then use my browsing method to decide, you could use your word of mouth and reviews methods to decide.
Seem like a good idea?
Cheers,
Ian
Re:TV is dying (Score:2)
Entertainment, not news shows...
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Looks like they have been r00ted. (Score:4, Insightful)
... as opposed to watching the broadcast for free?
The networks already got their money, and they didn't get it from the viewers. The advertisers paid for the broadcast and there shouldn't be anything more to ask for (unless they want to take the position of cable companies where they charge both the advertier and the viewer). If the networks don't feel like they're getting enough money then they should be talking to the people that actually pay for it, and if the advertisers won't pay any more than that's your problem, not mine.
The shows are being broadcast whether I like them or not. My TV received those broadcasts but either wasn't on or was focused on a different channel at the time. I also have the right to record such broadcasts whether I watch it at the time of recording or not. While it's true that it's copyrighted matieral, giving the networks the ability to control what they themselves distributed to anybody and everybody free of charge is ridiculous. If this keeps up will the networks attempt to have a say in the affairs of TV and VCR manufacturers to "help the networks defend their rights?"
Consumers don't want to play by the network's rules. In a capitalist society it is the network that must adapt to the situation, not the consumer.
Re:In response to her article (Score:2)
What needs to be done is a valid statistical study of Napster users to gauge cd purchasing habits before, during, and after Napster's heyday.
Anecdotal evidence on