MPAA targets TV download sites

[Wheemer]

Continuing its war on Internet file-swapping sites, the Motion Picture Association of America said Thursday that it has filed lawsuits against a half-dozen hubs for TV show trading.

The trade association said that piracy of TV programming is growing quickly online, and that shows are as important to protect as big-budget films. This is the first legal action from the group that has focused most heavily on TV content.

I am a paying Premium cable television user. I always record my favorite shows with Sage, in order to view them at my own convenience. However when it comes to archiving a series/show that I really enjoy, I've always found it more useful to just download a compressed version. The amount of effort and time it take to compress a Sage recording is way more.

Looks like I've lost the easy way out... guess I have to install autogk again. What a pain.

[Opus4]

I suppose this is why the forum has rule #4, prohibiting the promotion of copyright violations, including file sharing for TV shows/recordings.

- Andy

[Wheemer]

I hear you... I hope this isn't considered a promotion.

[korben_dallas]

Are there any Pay-for-download TV episode sites?

Think of the money that could be made there!!! (Assuming the writers, actors, networks, etc could come to some agreement on it.)

[Opus4]

Originally Posted by Wheemer

I hear you... I hope this isn't considered a promotion.

Oh, did that come across as a warning? I just meant this sort of thing is one of the reasons why the forum doesn't want to get into promoting sharing & such download sites.

- Andy

[Juncti]

The TV stations are just missing out on huge opportunities. They don't want you to download a show yet they won't replay most tv shows. So if you miss an episode of 24 and don't want to miss anything all your left with is waiting over a year for the dvd release.

Only time I ever download is just to catch stuff I missed or that got cut off due to pre-emption in the area.

[SHS]

korben_dallas was ref you to some a along the line of something like CinemaNOW, MovieLINK you pay any where from $1 to $5 per show from a legal distribute, as for any TV episode been legal distribute far I know of it only been movie.
The reason why TV episode are mustly on the illegal activities list is becuase Europe fans unwilling to wait for US shows to be legal air on there end of world some apply with US fans unwilling to wait for Europe shows to be legal air which take for ever up 1 year some time even longer if ever which is no diff then Anime from Japan, China, etc.

[falchulk]

Also, the TV seasons on DVD have become big buissness. Thats why the MPAA is involved. The sales blew up to be way more then anyone thought and they are going to protect that.

[dbfresh23]

The way I see it is that if I want to download a program that I could have watch and/or recorded via my paid TV subscription, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. Now if i wanted to go searching for a PPV event or other premium event or show, sure there's a lot wrong with that.

Also I wonder if there's a law that states that a personal archived TV show must be secured and cannot be in public view. We just need to put an end to the MPAA lining the pockets of politicians to get their way.

[Crashless]

You see, this whole thing is why I'm excited about IPTV. Though I will probably shed a tear the day I have to give up my HTPC, I'm sure it will come.



Eventually content providers will get with the times and give people what they want - completely on demand television. Sure, TV shows will still be broadcast, but I forsee a future where all content is an on-demand stream - You setup your shows on a STB, and they pop up as available as soon as their 'air time' is. Click and watch.

This opens up all the doors that the media conglomerates can't understand yet. If they figure out that by giving a legitamit outlet for the demand, people will flock to it. Look at iTunes and how HUGE of a success it has been. People wanted digital downloads of music, and when there was no legal way to do it, they went to people who _would_ give it to them.

I just wish the content providers would stop being so short-sighted for once, and stop holding on to antiquated revenue streams. If they would just stop for a second and look at the potential, they would not only make a killing on profits, they would save MILLIONS on lawyer fees.

<gets off soapbox>

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

Also I wonder if there's a law that states that a personal archived TV show must be secured and cannot be in public view. We just need to put an end to the MPAA lining the pockets of politicians to get their way.

It's called copyright. Copyright gives the rights holder exclusive rights to distribution of copyrighted content. That means you can view it, but you can't put it up on the internet for anyone to download. (What it doesn't give, is the holder control over what you do with it for your own private use).

IMO, what the MPAA has done here (going after sites that pirate TV/movies) is exactly what should be done (actually the authorities should). Copyright holders have all the protection they need.

I have no simpathy if someone who uploads/shares content is sued/prosecuted, they have no right to distrubute content to which someone else holds the copyright.

[dbfresh23]

ahh, I didn't say put it up for people to download, I said publicly display it. What rebels decided to do when they see it isn't your fault, they are "hacking" your storage server! I just don't see any reason that the internet cannot be used as a storage means.

I'm not talking about "Joe" down the street that doesn't subscribe to any method of TV service. If I subscribe to TV service and I miss a show that was broadcast on a channel I receive I should have every right to view it by someone else sharing it, I did pay for the initial broadcast after all.

I don't disagree with you on the copyright issue. If someone doesn't pay to view a service for which there is normally a charge, then they shouldn't be able to download it or get it by other means. But if i subscribe to NBC and I want to download a show that is on NBC, I should be able to.

IMO, there isn't much difference in how the MPAA, RIAA and Mafia go about their business. I am usually in favor of big business, but when an organization like the MPAA or RIAA go and lobby congre$$ to get their way, I find it hard to support that.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

ahh, I didn't say put it up for people to download, I said publicly display it. What rebels decided to do when they see it isn't your fault, they are "hacking" your storage server! I just don't see any reason that the internet cannot be used as a storage means.

Perhaps you use a differnet definition of "public" than I do. A media server is a private device, if somebody hacks into it, then it's not your fault. However:

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36

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:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(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;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Posting/storing/publishing something to the internet, where it's made public, is clearly a violation of at least 3 and probably 5, maybe even 6.

I'm not talking about "Joe" down the street that doesn't subscribe to any method of TV service. If I subscribe to TV service and I miss a show that was broadcast on a channel I receive I should have every right to view it by someone else sharing it, I did pay for the initial broadcast after all.

But you are not given that right anywhere, and whoever is sharing it is clearly infringing on the copyright. Now Fair Use does allow that you make a copy of the broadcast for purposes of timshifting.

Plus, you're paying for the service (cableTV/satellite), not for the content, you are not given any rights to the content.

I don't disagree with you on the copyright issue. If someone doesn't pay to view a service for which there is normally a charge, then they shouldn't be able to download it or get it by other means. But if i subscribe to NBC and I want to download a show that is on NBC, I should be able to.

Then you should talk to the copyright holder, they are the only ones who can provide, or authorize someone to provide you with a copy of the show you missed.

IMO, there isn't much difference in how the MPAA, RIAA and Mafia go about their business. I am usually in favor of big business, but when an organization like the MPAA or RIAA go and lobby congre$$ to get their way, I find it hard to support that.

I generally don't like the MPAA's (et all) tactics, especailly their predilection to scapegoat filesharing for their problems, and to lobby for more restrictive laws when there is no need.

Further, I personally (whether the law backs me or not) have no problem with downloading copywritten works, to the best of my knowledge, a copyright places no restrictions on obtaining content, as long as you have the consent of whoever you get it from (ie you aren't stealing it).

However there's really no excuse for the uploaders, they are clearly breaking copyright law.

It's kind of scary, finding myself on this side of the argument, since I believe (based on a number of studies, and some logic) that file sharing is NOT a bad thing for the content industry. eg it's been shown that people download a more diverse selection of music than is normally sold, so people are exposed to music they wouldn't normally be. It's also been shown that there's a slight positive corolation between music downloads and CD sales (ie downloads increase CD sales).

[silkshadow]

Debating the legalics is pointless IMO. The fact is that, right now, you guys in the US are having a bunch of huge companies band their enormous resources together into a 3rd party entity who is acting like a school yard bully. And like a bully, they are picking on the weak and helpless who do not have the resources to fight back. The role of any government is to protect their weakest member. Whats happening now is the governement is not only refusing to protect the helpless but is working with the bully. Just like the teacher who deliberatly turns away while the 80-pound "geek" is being pummeled by 5 200-pound bullies. Worse yet, these monolithic organizations give every one of their member companies the ability to hide themselves. In other words, they are being bullies who hide behind bigger bullies so when the "geek's" brother comes in to kick some butt they can avoid any blame. How weasely is that?!

This has nothing to do with legalics but everything to do with tactics. If these things were *really* "illegal" then why aren't there jail sentences for these website owners? Why are huge companies banding their resources to create a gigantic bully to beat on them? If I kill a Time Warner exec in New York, Time Warner, Sony, NBC, Disney, et al do not spend a ton of money to create an organization to sue me so none of them can be held individually liable for doing so. They simply press charges and the NYPD arrests me and puts me in jail.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by stanger89

However there's really no excuse for the uploaders, they are clearly breaking copyright law.

That assumes that the uploaders did not get permission. How many uploaders actually state whether or not they received permission? If it's not explicitly stated, what assumption should downloaders make?

[gplasky]

Please...if anyone actually had the right to upload this stuff they would be the first to say so. I find it hard to believe that you actually think that there may be someone out there that actually has permission to upload a TV show.

Gerry

[Opus4]

Regarding copyright violations and jail: I suppose that depends on how persistent a copyright violator is. But, there are definitely legal ramifications for copyright violations. Example: stores can run into copyright violation sanctions when they make copies of portraits -- the photographer automatically holds a copyright on the image and stores can be, and have been, fined for makig copies of such portraits. Technically, you aren't even allowed to make copies of copyrighted images on your home printer. That's whay there is such a thing as "copyright": the right to make or authorize copies is limited to the owner of the copyright. One thing a copyright owner can do is sue the copyright violators... does that sound familiar?

- Andy

[Blue]

Originally Posted by gplasky

Please...if anyone actually had the right to upload this stuff they would be the first to say so. I find it hard to believe that you actually think that there may be someone out there that actually has permission to upload a TV show.

I don't believe anyone has permission, thus my facetious tone that I mistakingly thought was evident.

[gplasky]

Gotcha-overlooked the smiley.

Gerry