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?"

Repost

[Xeo 024]

It's a dupe [slashdot.org].

Re:isohunt.com - gone?

[Agret]

Going to http://www.isohunt.com/ [isohunt.com] takes me to http://www.torrentbox.com/ [torrentbox.com]

Maybe they felt like a change? ;)

Here are three

[mindaktiviti]

#1) The commercials are typically ripped out.

#2) Even if the commercials were kept in you could still fast forward through them.

#3) They don't control it. Nor would they probably want such a model because it wouldn't allow them the same amount of power as before (i.e. with these so called "television sets").

Re:Can you be sued if...

[Dutch_Cap]

"Can you be sued if you havn't downloaded any content, and havn't uploaded any content, but provide a website that hosts .torrent files?"

Well, not in Sweden [thepiratebay.org]. Not sure about other countries, though.

Re:Is Zonk the new Timothy?

[/ASCII]

My post was not meant as an attack on Zonk.

Re:Well yes, they would...

[StrawberryFrog]

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?

Actually, I'm downloading the episode of Dr Who [bbc.co.uk] that I missed last night. The original contained no advertisiments, and is subsidised by the tax that I pay in the UK. Now the reason why I shouldn't download it again is ... what exactly?

ALso I'm really not sure what the difference is between downloading an American show that I missed a few weeks ago on the Sci-fi channel (yup, again I pay for that), and recording it with a VCR, DVR, TiVo or whatnot.

Re:Expats

[markholmberg]

From my own experience I can tell you one does not need to be an expat to have the same problem.

I have lived in quite many countries - Canada, USA, France, Sweden etc. While abroad, I learnt to love many programs we do not get in my native country, for example Leno, O'Brien and Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I have also adopted a lot of the other cultures along the way. For example, I find american political life hugely interesting (and slightly amusing).

Anyways, there is no way for me currently to obtain these shows other than using bittorrent.

What strikes me as odd is, why don't the TV channels just embrace us "global" people as a new market segment rather than just trying to act all hostile. Historically, customers were segmented and marketed by where they live as you also had to shop there. By this, you formed your 4P's of marketing. That is not true anymore. I, a person living in Finland, can have very similar needs and a mindset as a person living in California. Thanks to global trade and the promise of e-commerce, I can also be marketed very similar products. There are countless examples of products I have bought online that I have seen advertised elsewhere than my home country. Books, clothing etc.

I guess the main problem is, that with media, the products is differentiated to the max. There is only one company that can provide me with "the daily show" or the newest CD by Moby. With no substitutes available...

(And here is something for you that say "why don't you download music by bands that distribute it online". Different pieces of music are just NOT substitutes)

Re:Is Zonk the new Timothy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually:

He is perhaps best remembered for the legend of how he commanded the waves to go back. According to the legend, he grew tired of flattery from his courtiers. When one such flatterer gushed that the king could even command the obedience of the sea, Canute proved him wrong by practical demonstration at Southampton, his point being that even a king's powers have limits. Unfortunately, this legend is sometimes misunderstood to mean that he believed himself so powerful that the natural elements would obey him, and that his failure to command the tides only made him look foolish.

Re:Is Zonk the new Timothy?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that story is how King Canute is misrepresented by certain people. The actual story is that Canute, recognising his subjects were idiots who thought he was god-like, sought to demonstrate he was not actually all-powerful by failing to turn back the tide.

Unfortunately, many of his aforementioned idiot subjects failed to get the point, and just thought he was mental.

Usually, you can tell the socioeconomic class of a person in Britain by which variant they relate: if they're "ooh help I'm being repressed" working-class, they'll paint Canute as arrogant and stupid in the manner of your story. If they're middle or upper class (and aware of the historical data), they'll relate the more sensible "Canute demonstrating he's just some guy" story.

Re:I was always wondering...

[Anonymous Coward]

Theoretically, there is no difference between YOU digitally recording a TV show for later viewing, and you downloading the digital recording someone else made, and watching it later. Either way, the same show is a)recorded digitally and b) watched by you at a time later than it was originally shown.

The only difference is that fact that recording a show yourself, you will also record the ads. Therefore, it is assumed that while watching it later, the ads will play then. THIS IS BECOMING LESS AND LESS TRUE. Some DVRs have the ability to skip ads automatically, some manually (30 sec skip, etc). And people ave ALWAYS had the ability to get their asses out of their chair and walk away during the ads. In fact, many people leave the room to go to the bathroom, or make a snack during the ads.

There is no moral difference between
1) Not watching the ads
2) Skipping (ie: not watching) the ads
3) Cutting out (ie: not watching) the ads.

In all three cases, THE ADS DO NOT GET WATCHED. And that's what is chafing the ass of the MPAA.

Re:Here are three

[Teja]

I have yet to see one's with commercials still in them. I'd think that it'd be more of a hassle to seed since all it will do is just raise up the download size. Typically, here is how I've seen it as. A typical 1 hour show (Non HDTV) w/o commericals (Usually is 42 minutes with intro and ending credits) usually add up to around 350 MB. A typicall half hour show (Non HDTV) w/o commercials (Usually is around 22 minutes with the intro and the ending credits) usually add up to around 170 MB or so. While it'd be quicker to get it up online, you probably won't see nearly as many seeders knowing that there are still commercials in them (sure you can fast forward, but why bother when you can download one's that you don't have to with?)

Re:Btefnet isn't closed

[Buzzard2501]

oblivionx (an op on #bt @ efnet): "The site was not shut down, we took it offline. The MPAA has NOT contacted us yet, so as of right now we are not in a lawsuit."

The channel was back to normal before (with the latest Dr. Who ep), but has since been set +m.

Re:Is that a serious question?

[LiquidCoooled]

The best part about the BBC is that there are no adverts to block anyway.

In the near future, the entire library of BBC programs as broadcast will be available online.
It is already happening with the radio shows and other material.

At that point, most of the torrents and other p2p links for bbc material should begin to dry up.

I pay for the BBC, and find their attitude to the web refreshing in todays over commerialised world.

Some links:

bbc home page [bbc.co.uk]
News about opening archive [bbc.co.uk]

Re:I was always wondering...

[cpt kangarooski]

TV shows are copyrighted, but is their distribution illegal?

Let's see:

Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 ... is an infringer of the copyright.

17 USC 501(a)

So let's see section 106:

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:

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.

17 USC 106

So yeah -- unless there's some applicable exception here (I wouldn't bet on it) -- it's illegal.

Re:Is Zonk the new Timothy?

[FidelCatsro]

you are aware it most likely never actualy happend and is a simple myth (many other cultures have simmilar storys)
also http://www.mythome.org/environ.html [mythome.org]
there are also two versions of the story , one by his enemys (the one which i cited ) and the one by his freinds , it has nothing to do with class.
So infact both are right and both are fables .
There is no evidence to support either having actualy occured .
So those who know the historic facts are in the know that it was a myth

Re:Well yes, they would...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/05/08/futur e_tv/index_np.html?x [salon.com]

Re:Well yes, they would...

[YrWrstNtmr]

As opposed to the value that they would have if I were to legally record the show to VCR and fast-forward the ads?

The percentage of people that do that (along with the number of people that make a sandwich or go to the bathroom) is factored into their 'numbers of eyeballs' calculations. The advertisers, networks, and media survey people have surveys and stats on this going back decades.

Re:So what?

[1u3hr]

What you dont understand is that i dont care if its a dupe.

I understand, and I don't care that you don't care. And so on. I think I understand why the editors dupe, it's because they're jaded and don't give a shit, not because they want to give you a second chance to read a story. (This isn't radio, you know. Stories don't need to be repeated on the hour, you can just page back and see every story ever posted if you feel like it.) I do care about the lack of professionalism. If you don't like that; put me on your foe/freak list, however that works (I've never bothered to find out), maybe it'll filter me out.

Re:Well yes, they would...

[wooley-one]

Jamie Kellner said so in an interview with CableWorld

http://www.broadband-pbimedia.com/cgi/cw/show_mag. cgi?pub=cw&mon=042902&file=contents_king.inc [broadband-pbimedia.com]

excerpt below:

JK: ... We'd be running the exact same spots. It would all be incremental viewership. That's just one idea. I'm a big believer we have to make television more convenient or we will drive the penetration of PVRs and things like that, which I'm not sure is good for the cable industry or the broadcast industry or the networks.

CW: Why not?

JK: Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming.

CW: What if you have to go to the bathroom or get up to get a Coke?

JK: I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom. But if you formalize it and you create a device that skips certain second increments, you've got that only for one reason, unless you go to the bathroom for 30 seconds. They've done that just to make it easy for someone to skip a commercial.

Not quite a Repost

[ghoda_x]

You'll notice that the first time this story came up, it was merely to point out the MPAA's actions in regards to sites that listed TV shows. In this article, a quite valid question has been raised regarding the fact that these shows have already been broadcast - ie I pay for cable, I pay for cable broadband, so what's the diff? The business model is still the same, the cable company gets my money either way for the same content.