What is Digg?190 Comments
- WBSpring, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5> TV shows are only free if u watch them on TV or record them on VCR for
> your own viewing. Its aginst the law to distribute them, or so it was
> decided many years ago when VCR's 1st came out. I think the MPAA is
> suing coz by people downloading they loose ratings and so the ads spaces
> sell for less.
For new episodes, they air the show and that's it... If you weren't around to watch it at the time of the airing, you didn't see the commercials, and you didn't participate in any "ratings".
I'm a busy person, and I have not been able to watch the cable TV shows I pay for in a long time. I used to tape the shows, but the tapes fill up, and there overlapping times, which require multiple VCRs. It was a hassle to manage. And, while watching a taped show, I would fast forward through all of the commercials.
However, some nice people decided to do all of the work for me, thus freeing up some of my time. Without the downloads, I would not have been able to watch the shows. I would have to wait years for the re-broadcasts, which I would likely miss.
The reason why the MPAA is getting involved is mostly likely due to the popularity of purchasing the season DVD box sets. They might think that those who didn't watch the show will spend $50 on a season of episodes. Unfortunately, the reasoning is flawed. I'm a big Sci-fi fan, and I own box sets for seasons 1 - 4 Stargate SG-1. I downloaded all of the season 8 episodes, but I will be buying the box set, because I'm a fan. I'll probably do the same thing with Lost, since it is a really good series. Good series will sell, bad series will not, regardless of how the show was originally watched. And, if you don't watch the series you will NOT buy the box set for $50 to see if it is any good!
Ever since I started downloading TV shows I had been hoping that the networks would catch on and post episodes for download - I would pay $0.50 for an episode ($1.00 if the show is REALLY good).
ABC.com actually posted (for free) the recap episodes of Lost and Desperate Housewives. They were split into 6 parts, with each part preceded by a single commercial, but at least the idea is a start.
There really need to be major changes in this area. AT&T was showing commercials in the mid-90s that said we would be able to call up any TV show or movie at home, when we wanted. The technology hasn't developed to the right point for the demand. That's why downloading TV shows has become popular - it is the only solution. I though the ON-Demand services from the local cable company were going to offer the ability to "watch TV the way you want", but they do not offer current TV episodes. I was extremely upset when I signed up for the service and didn't receive what I was promised.
Sorry for the long post - this is one of my "hot buttons". - GWATA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'll answer some of these questions honestly and with a little less hostility than others...
Disclaimer 1: Yes, I work for a major distributor that makes A LOT of money off of the commercials that are deleted from downloaded shows
Disclaimer 2: These are my opinions and in no way do I represent the official stance of previously referred to distributor
by: lightdarknes “I'm paying for the content via my cable company�
GWATA> In the case of programs on “Cable TV� stations like SciFi or ESPN, a portion of the bill you pay to your cable company does go towards the subscription of that channel. The additional subscription costs the cable company has to pay, comes from the advertisers that pay to have their commercials on at that particular timeslot to get the attention of the particular demographic they want.
In the case of broadcast stations, you are incorrect. The bill includes the fees to actually get the signal to your home, i.e. the equipment in the company’s facilities and fiber and cable to your door, and the cable box on your TV. These are all very expensive, not to mention local taxes and franchise fees (aka taxes). The rest is paid by those same advertisers that if you’re not watching the commercials, then they get no value from advertising, then nobody gets paid, then nobody makes any content, then nobody has anything to steal. (Yes this is stealing)
>>>>>
by: BrWatcher "downloading shows does not affect ratings"
GWATA: you're probably right, but because the individuals downloading shows are less likely to have a Nielsen's ratings box in their house, and therefore don't really count towards ratings. Although the number of downloads is a key indicator of whatever key demographic we fall into, is watching
>>>>>
Definition 1: Pay = Watch commercials, or exchange an equal financial compensation
>>>>>
by: EI-DEZ
And what about me? I am living in Italy ... Am I somehow, in any way, reducing their capability of selling something? Am I stealing something?
by: befb
But a simple matter which hasn't been considered is the fact that a big portion of the downloaders of American TV shows are foreigners.
GWATA> I truly feel sorry for those who do not have the opportunity to have all the content we gluttonous American’s have at our fingertips. If I ever live outside of the US, I’ll probably have an illegal US Satellite Dish. But the fact is the content owners have a business to run, and currently that business is in the US. Just like McDonalds, Starbucks and so many others, I am sure one day they will decide to take that business International to bring in new streams of revenue, but they haven’t decided to do that yet. So what you are stealing is the content owners’ right to make a profit off of this content at some point in the future if they choose to. Yes, yes, I’m sure you would pay for the content when it’s made available to you, but business aren’t run on what you may or may not do in the future if I even believed you, which I don’t so don’t bother wasting your breath.
>>>>>
by: WBSpring “The technology hasn't developed to the right point for the demand. That's why downloading TV shows has become popular - it is the only solution. I though the ON-Demand services from the local cable company were going to offer the ability to "watch TV the way you want", but they do not offer current TV episodes. I was extremely upset when I signed up for the service and didn't receive what I was promised.�
by: tphili17 "To those who think people can make money off pay-per-download system for TV shows ...It would cost around $15-$20US per show downloaded to hope to turn a profit."
GWATA> the technology does exist and the infrastructure is already in place, it’s called Video-on-Demand, and unless you are very unlucky, you cable provider does have VOD capabilities already, and it’s not nearly that expensive. The reason you can’t get Desperate Housewives or your favorite soap opera on VOD is because the content owners wouldn’t give up the rights to the cable companies to do so.
This is the real reason to be angry with the MPAA
>>>>>
Disclaimer 3: I HATE COMMERCIALS and I would rather sit here for 4 hours reading and writing than watch ANY
Disclaimer 4: I pay over $100/mo for Cable and $13/mo for PVR functionality
>>>>>
by: BrWatcher
MPAA and television executives are blind. Why they care about internet distribution?
GWATA> They care because of me (and everyone else stealing it out there), if I could I would dump my cable all together and just download it all for free. Just like them I’m most concerned about the bottom line, mine that is. The fact is this isn’t about catching the little guys like you, it’s about keeping the honest people honest, because if it went unchecked it would become a real big problem and they would loose real money (billions).
If someone WANTS to steel something they will. If someone really WANTS to steal my car, there is nothing I can do about it, they’ll find a way, but I’m not about to leave it in the middle of midtown Manhattan with the top down and the keys in the ignition. And that’s what these lawsuits do, keep the honest people honest but not making it easy to steal.
>>>>>
by: Inquisitor
MPAA don't get it. They could open their own torrenttracker that serves episodes with commercials the same minute they air. Then maybe people would get them there instead.
GWATA>See previous answer about VOD
>>>>>
by: charlotte "If they made shows available without commercials I would gladly pay for them."
by: CoZzMiX "I think everyone hear is missing an important point and that is that there is no legal alternative to this service."
by: EI-DEZ "just give me the opportunity to LEGALLY get my beloved TV show(s), and I'll pay for it (them)."
GWATA: Yes, I’m sure you would and if I could pay an extra $35/mo to go 100mph on the highway I would, but just because there is not means to pay those taxes, doesn't mean I’m not breaking the law when I do.
Faulty counter argument = speeding tickets are those taxes.
This is Faulty because the lawsuits are the equivalent of a speeding ticket. They are a citation for allegedly breaking the law, which is TBD in a court of law.
>>>>>
by: I_Soar "Those who invest in the creation of content -- whether that investment is money, time, resources or their natural creative gifts -- have a moral right to control their creations."
GWATA: Although I agree with you statement, the practice of the law does not. Very, VERY few actors have any right to what happens to the content once they sign the contract, it's all in the hands of whose owns the content.
>>>>>
by: ChrisHackett "NO one can follow the law to the letter ... it is unlawful law to eat mince pies at x mas ... Just because a law say something is wrong does not mean it is."
GWATA> Yes they can. And just like anyone caught breaking the law, they will have their day in court and have the opportunity to make their case for why the law is wrong, stupid or otherwise inappropriate, and the court will decide who is right and who is wrong and then either we’ll all be able to use a VCR or we’ll have to pay to watch Terri Hatcher get just naked enough not to offend some senators 5yr old son, who probably wants to bang her just as much as I do.
>>>>>
by: doesntmatter "...nonsense…"
GWATA: yes nielsen's system is flawed, who cares, not the point here
>>>>>
by: Marquise "I think that the sites that offer free to air programs probably have an out"
GWATA: probably not, because you are not paying (see definition above) to see something that was not intended to be free.
>>>>>
by: WBSpring
Here are some questions that I really need answered:
• How is seeder zero any different from a neighbor who tapes the show for you, and you, who gives the show to a friend who missed it?
GWATA> They are no different, they are both equally illegal. You are “legally� allowed to tape a show for your personal viewing pleasure. You do not have the right to share that outside your home, or to make copies for the purpose of distributing it outside your home. The fact that a video tape copy (analog source) degrades in quality each time it is copied is the reason this has not been such a big deal in the past. Digital Rights Management (DRM) is the solution for digital copies of content, but has yet to be widely distributed.
• Why is it that you can legally purchase equipment to make a copy for yourself or pay for a service that will provide you with copies (TIVO), but obtaining a copy by a free method is illegal?
GWATA> Because it’s for personal use and the courts deemed that it is fair and reasonable to allow people to make a single “backup� copy to protect your investment. Because you have paid for it, (see definition above).
The problem is that most people use these devices illegally because they are either ignorant of the law or don’t care about it.
• Why is it legal for a box office to charge you a 20% convenience fee for purchasing an event ticket when a person who has purchased the ticket can be arrested for selling it above face value (and in some areas for not giving it away for free)?
GWATA>Ticketmaster is a racket and a monopoly. The same reason it’s illegal to charge more to use a credit card, but legal (in some areas) to discount cash purchaces.
• If you never distribute a full copy of the show, are you breaking the law?
GWATA> That’s one that the courts will have to decide on, I don’t think this is truly clear yet. (unless you ask the RIAA or MPAA who are proven liers, see How RIAA and MPAA are liars at bottom)
• Why isn’t I2P being adopted more quickly by torrent downloaders?
GWATA>Because the masses, and many early adapters (like me) have not heard of it. I’m sure there is someone making a BT client that will use it. It also may not add much value.
• Why is it that Disney releases movies on DVD and then threatens to hide them for 20 years in some “vault�?
GWATA> Because people will rush to buy them and they don’t need to use up valuable space, (warehouse, shelf or other storage), on these titles that they know a certain number of people are going to buy whether it’s over 10 years or 10 months.
• Why download a show that you didn’t have time to watch in the first place? Will you really have time to watch it later?
GWATA> Yes, if you work late but watch it while in bed. Or watch the entire season of a show back to back over the course of a weekend. With out commercials you can watch a 24 episode season of a half hour sitcom in 8 hrs.
• Do downloaders save the episodes or just watch them and delete them to make space?
GWATA> Depends on the Series. If a downloader relly likes it, they’ll keep it and watch it again and again. (Simpsons, Stargate, Lost) if not they’ll just delete it (any given reality show)
• Since people stop going through red lights after red light cameras are installed, how does the government expect to make enough money to cover the cost? Will they shorten the cycle time on the light so people will become impatient and risk running the light?
GWATA> A combination of the early offenders pay for the system and drunk drivers not paying attention or just not caring. Some would argue, those mostly being the stupid positions who decided that it was a good idea in the first place, that the safer roads to drive on will be the payment, or the reduced insurance costs due to less accidents. (like I’ll ever see that). And there’s also the 20 less cops they have to pay because they don’t have to watch stop lights anymore.
• Why are there so many vehicles on the road with hand-written license tags in the window? Is tag loss / theft really THAT big of a problem? And why not use something a little more legible than a number 2 pencil when making a temporary tag?
GWATA> Those are stolen cars
• What is the magic amount to donate to the police fund so they don’t call you 4 times a year looking for more money?
GWATA> 0 dollars. If you don’t donate, they don’t want to waste their time calling you. If you do, they want to spend the time trying to get you to donate just a little bit more.
• When did a half-gallon of ice cream turn into 1.75 quarts?
GWATA>When Breyer’s decide to go healthy, but then realized that the average American isn’t going to pay the 12.5% more it takes to be healthy, but they are dumb enough not to realize that the tub is smaller.
• Do you still say “half-gallon� even though the quantity is smaller?
GWATA> yes, because it’s the style of tub not the quantity in it. Like you call all facial tissues Kleenex or cotton swabs Q-Tips, or Laura Ingalls half-pint when she is clearly larger than a gallon
• Why does a ring tone cost $1.99 when you can buy 2 full songs for $1.98?
GWATA> Because it’s cool and it’s hip and stupid people pay a lot of money for cool hip things. Supply and Demand.
• Can you sue the MPAA for shutting down a torrent site, citing that you are suffering from separation anxiety, loneliness or depression?
GWATA> you can, but I doubt you’d find a lawyer to take the case for free. I’d rather put that money down on the Heat to beat the Wizards. The odds will probably be 5-1 and so that 10k will probably only get you 2k back, but a 20% ROI is a hell of a lot better then any other investment I’ve made this year, and the odds are better then beating the MPAA, and it takes a lot less time.
• Is anybody even reading this? And, does anybody care?
GWATA> I am, I do and that is probably why I am manus-sexual
>>>>>
by: iXneonXi "...Anybody ... can get these shows without commercials...."
GWATA> In this case, it is free for you to watch, but not distribute. This will be an interesting argument if made in court. If it were used in court and deemed a loophole that someone got off on, i would suspect that very shortly after that, all of those stations would soon be scrambled. You may have just screwed all those watching TV that way by bringing attention to something that would have otherwise been over looked.
>>>>>
How RIAA and MPAA are liars
MPAA runs commercials before Movies saying some regular guy gets hurt when you steal a movie. This is a lie because he works under a contract and has already been paid. He does not get points (percentage of profits) on the back end which is what stealing movies affects.
RIAA says that you are paying a "licence" to listen to a song. a copy can be made as long as that orginal licence is only in use in one place at any given moment in time. so why does that licence cost twice as much on a CD than on a cassette tape? because it costs more to produce? NO it is orders of magnitude cheaper to create and distribute CDs than Cassettes. Then prices should fall? Nope because they are a monoply on distrbution, only a revolution (napster) brought the monoplistic industry down.
None of these points can be argued
the debate can end now
please only post new items that include sites where people can download tv episodes
(yes i am arogent and cocky, but i'm also right) - Wheemer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is horrible... I am a paying cable television customer. While I could be recording the shows with a tuner card, I always found it easier to just download them. I hope something else will replace this service soon.
- kalli6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1story at:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5705142.html - Keldorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=btefnet&btnG=Google+Search
maybe thats how it has that many anonymous :/ - kfloydh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1thanks for the link kalli6...I agree with Zachariah and Wheemer...the stuff being downloaded is already free (broadcast) or already being paid for (cable)...see my comments at the end of this blog for more detail on my thoughts... http://allforces.com/2005/04/21/poor-mans-tivo/
- lightdarknes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>It's pretty amazing to hear people whine about not being able to download
>their favorite episodes. If you are that serious about keeping up with
>your shows, buy a tivo, or better yet build a mythtv box.
For someone like me, who doesn't have a TV in their room, to just download the episode to watch over and over again. For instance, I always download the Family Guy episodes. Am I trying to undermine fox and take away from their money making? Not at all! I own every family guy DVD, Live in Las Vegas DVD, OST, posters, and even some t-shirts. I'm paying for the content via my cable company, and purchasing their merchandise. Why can't I download the episode for convience? - StrikeByte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1On there irc channel they say they are not sued.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: The #BT Website is currently down. Releases are on hold, possibly for the entire night, until we have a better understanding of the current situation. We have NOT been sued! Please be patient and do not PM the ops. We will keep you guys updated - kfloydh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't understand why I'm allowed to use an antenna that I paid for to bring broadcast TV into my home...but I'm not allowed to use my internet connection that I paid for to bring the same broadcast TV into my home...
- kobe_kafka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1MPAA portrays itself as the almighty protector of copyrights and intellectual property. What a load of crap. Like all organizations it, first and foremost, acts in its own self interest. It has a staff, marketing budgets and operating expenses, just like any organization. And, just like everyone else, it must generate revenue to cover that overhead. They do that by providing a product or service that their membership (i.e. "customer") is willing to pay for. Further, they then "market" (i.e. hype) that service to increase the perceived value of that service, thereby generating greater membership dues (revenue).
The reason for the popularity of torrent sharing is that there is a disparity between supply and demand. There is a definite demand for the television programming being provided by btefnet and other torrent providers. Btefnet and other sites provide the supply. That supply is pretty much free of charge, as the sites really don't generate any substantial revenue streams, that I can perceive.　
Now, the MPAA is going to change that. They are proactively trying to reduce supply, while demand remains constant. What happens? Just like OPEC, prices rise.
As btefnet is free, it almost completely removes the profit motivation for the real pirates. With btefnet around, it’s pretty hard to generate any pirated profit for television torrent. If MPAA succeeds, reducing the supply of free content, they end up providing a monetary incentive for the real pirates to step in and actually generate profit for themselves.
Now for the MPAA this is a good thing. This situation gives them new, bigger and meaner targets to go after. And that of course means more fees (i.e. revenue) from their membership. And, since they are doing such a great job of fighting the great black pirate menace, Dan Glickman and company should get big fat raises, as well.
Now, my question is this: What would happen if Mark Burnett and Donald Trump and all the other producers of this programming actually signed deals with btefnet? Let’s say the basic terms of those deals are that btefnet could distribute their programming, including commercials that are part of the show. The content producers would provide 75% of the commercial programming and btefnet would be free to sell the rest of the commercial time for themselves. I mean, this is already a proven business model as it is the very way television networks started in the first place!
Oh, woops I forgot! This would mean less of the big bad pirates for Dan Glickman to chase after. His membership would problem want to pay less in membership fees, and Mr. Glickman and staff would probably have to take pay cuts.
Do not misunderstand ultimate motivation of the MPAA. If the producers of content were smart, they would find ways of working with the fine folks at btefnet, generating enhanced revenue streams. Right now they are simply dazzled by MPAA propaganda, allowing the MPAA to profit, when it really could be the producers themselves making the cash.
- honz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1TV shows are only free if u watch them on TV or record them on VCR for your own viewing. Its aginst the law to distribute them, or so it was decided many years ago when VCR's 1st came out. I think the MPAA is suing coz by people downloading they loose ratings and so the ads spaces sell for less.
- dougsmiley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://unrealtorrents.com/index.php appears to be adding all of the tv shows pretty well. Got all the main ones for tonight for anyone looking. I logged in in MIRC and it seems it's not gone completly just moving or something. Would be a smart move to move servers out of country like the pirate bay's are. MPAA a-holes can't touch them then.
- doesntmatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't know if the point I'm about to make has already been stated, I stopped reading nearly at the bottom of the page, or not.
From what I understand, a network makes revenue by selling ad space/time during their programming. They use ratings for these programs from the folks at Nielsen to adjust the rates that they charge advertisers to air commercials.
The way Nielsen works is that a 'fraction' of the viewing audience of the US has their television viewing 100% monitored. Every second is recorded of what they watch, when they leave, and when they come back. These stats are then used to show what every single person in the country is watching.
These people are the ones who dictate what is popular and what is not. Many shows with strong fanbases have been canceled because these people simply didn't watch them. Some that come to mind are Felicity, Angel, Family Guy. Arrested Developement, the funniest show on television in years, is on the verge of cancelization again. All because those with the 'power' don't watch them.
So, my point is this: The networks make their 'much needed' revenue when a show FIRST brocasts and the Nielsen families are watching.
If every single person in America is watching show x, but the Nielsen family is watching show b on a different network, then show x makes the network zero dollars.
To me that seems very flawed.
It doesn't matter wath the rest of the country does with these shows, it doesn't effect the ratings in any way.
Unless of course, little Billy Nielsen is illegally dl'ing shows. *oh no!* - ChrisHackett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0NO one can follow the law to the letter
for example in the UK (where i am from) it is unlawful law to eat mince pies at x mas (it had got left on the statue book and would be a massif waste of time and money to remove it)
Just because a law say something is wrong does not mean it is.
Also in Chester (UK) it is leagel to shoot a welsh man after midnight inside the city wall with a bow and arrow (another law left on the statue book, originated when the welsh were trying to invade England) - Marquise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I Soar:
"None of that is relevant, because it is up to the copyright owner, and the copyright owner alone, to determine how the work is to be reproduced and distributed -- or whether it will even be reproduced and distributed at all."
Well, it's good to see someone is listening in Intellectual Property 101 when the rest of us are bunking off.
However, I think that the sites that offer free to air programs probably have an out. Its unlikley any argument over cable channels will fly; and they're going to run into trouble because the original broadcast was altered... But the networks (the free to air ones at least) broadcast their shows over antennae which then go on to hit houses that aren't even necessarily tuned into the channels their antennae are being hit by. They could argue that by using a mass, untargeted method of distribution with no idea for 1. asking recompense ($) of the people watching the broadcast or 2. any idea (aside from a highly primitive diary-based neilsen system) of who is even watching their content and any susbequent distribution is simply an extention of their own reckless disregard for their own copyright. For this to apply, the shows would likely have to be in original format (that means including ads, guys).
But hey... May be approaching this from the wrong angle (I bunked off IP, remember? ;)). Hopefully BT has better lawyers than me ;). Need my UPN goodness! - tphili17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm confused...isn't MPAA more like a lobbying group than a business? I don't hear about FOX suing anyone. Or Comedy Central or CBS or Warner Bros. Those are the businesses, and they are silent. So how does "stupid capitalists" come in to play?
And does anyone else see the irony in calling people who fail to capitalize on potential profit as "stupid capitalists"? Capitalist was used as an insult, like its bad to be a capitalist, and then get mad when they refuse to do the very thing capitalists are known for (go for profit). Perhaps the MPAA is a socialist group?
Oh, and you people in other countries: I feel for you. I really do. Everybody I know (all in the states) blatantly rip the entertainment industry off. I mean, we're watching this stuff without paying for it. And we have all the access we could want in TV and cable and satellite. We're just cheap freeloaders. And there are a lot of us. LOTS. If all the torrent sites are shut down, we might actually watch TV with commercials again.
But its always nice to hear people bitch and moan about how the world is completely backwards and how its unfair that you don't get what you want.
Consider this:
1) By cutting off torrent sites, they try to restrict the freeloaders in the US, thus saving them money.
2) Creating a pay-per-download site is extremely expensive to set up and operate. This includes setting up billing accounts, users accounts, maintaining the hardware and the bandwidth (can you imagine pay-per-download in a bit-torrent format?), as well as deal with complaints if the video is not perfect.
I'm betting people considered having an itunes-like site for TV and movies. And I bet their numbers showed it was an incredibly high risk.
I'm unethical, but try to be practical. - guest99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BTEFNET is down for a long time.... MPAA has not given notice, but BTEFNET is not going to wait.... this is confirmed information.
- mugget, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oh well, time to move onto other trackers or IRC i guess? BTefnet was good... but either way i've still got the latest 24 episode so this hasn't really changed much at all.
- Freak4Dell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Everyone should participate in a national boycott of television. Let's see what the MPAA thinks about that. We should do something like that for music also, like stop buying CDs or something.
- IamLou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Enough! As long as argue with those who (as well as not belonging in this forum) keep saying that downloading BT is illegal, this debate shall remain futile.
Stop arguing with the naysayers, they are not worth it. Stop behaving like fearful outlaws and become the potential costumers you are! Downloading BT is illegal because only the MPAA and the RIAA have made themselves heard. Come on people! Propose solutions, offer compromise, reach consensus and we too shall end up winners. Or do you prefers being a victim... - EI-DEZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ah, BTW, did you know (at least in Italy IS true) that making a copy - using your DVD Recorder or Tape Recorder or whatever) of an aired show is ILLGEGAL? It breakes the law - among the other things ;-) that protects copyrights. Completely and definitely illegal! I guess it may be the same all over the world or at least in the US, so... it may turn it's not a strictly ethical matter after all ("BT is illeagal, so tape the show")!!!
And... come on! We are not talking about lives here, we are talking about billions of dollars for few, and all this is still not resolving the "foreigners option" issue, that may not have a solution at all... - Pissed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I'll say it one last time, if you like a show enough, inconvenience yourself a little and set the vcr to tape it. You ARE allowed to do this lawfully. If you are too lazy to figure out how to program your vcr, or you're a bit more tech savy, get a TIVO to do the dirty work for you. If you're a do-it-yourself'er, set up the OSS PVR Mythtv. Then you'll have your beloved digital computer-friendly video files. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have a MythTV box that helps me keep up with the shows I enjoy. If you can't do any of these, buy the DVD when it is released."
So what happens in the coming weeks with season finallies for 3-4 series that are playing at the sametime? People wrote in the TV guide about people complaining that they won't be able to watch all their shows.
Tivo can only record one show unless you have the direct tv one which records two at one time but that still leaves 1-2 more shows I need recording. So what do I do? Are you saying I am going to have to suck it up and not watch the final episode after I have been supporting them for the whole season? F that!
From my personal experience, I am now watching 4 more series I would have never watched if I hadn't seen the download for them on a torrent site. Since i was half way into the season before i heard about the show, I wasn't about to start watching them live on tv and miss the previous shows, so you download them. I am now hooked on the shows and watch them live on TV every week. They just made money from me because I was able to get a chance to watch a series that wouldn't have been possible without torrents letting a person catch up to where the series is on live TV.
I guess some people just think that if it is the law then it is obviously right even when it f***s us. The shows I can't watch because they are on a different time a show is on is not losing a viewer or skuing the numbers of viewers watching the show because they are downloading it instead, if the person isn't watching it int he first place. Hell, because of the fact he can watch it when he wants because of the download, it might actually draw him to liking that program more then the one he watches on TV live and maybe start watching that one on TV live. There is more money into there pocket because someone was able to download and get hooked onto a show so much they decided to watch instead of the other program. - mist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So.. I am one of the evil beings that the MPAA is trying to ensure that I don't get my hands on the shows.
I'm not from the US, and I download whatever I want to watch.
But this is the SAME as what I do with ANime, which is cartoons from Japan,
The people in Japan are not suing the websites that distribute the torrents, However on the people in the US are. They work on the same premises, DVD sales.. blah blah blah.
Yeah, it is illegal, but I do it anyway, That's the whole point of the internet isn't it?
Yeah well the arguments are all the same ( I soar reminds me of my IP lecturer) and Well Although I agree with his valid points... ( he MIGHT just be might lectuerer.. who knows! ) I still say that.. So long as I get my downloads I'm happy.
Yes. I've stopped watching TV a long time ago. Yes it's because I'm attending classes.. which occur at the oddest hours and makes me miss the shows.
I've only started watching TVshows recently because I could download it.
When I missed episodes, and the whole show didn't make sense, it didn't make sense to be to watch something I didn't understand. And I could not really want to schedule my life around the TV. That would just be sad.
Okay I'm starting to rant, but I've already watched halfway of the shows, and now, I don't even know what time the shows airs here. If it airs at all.
If I can even catch it.
I guess I've got to live my life in the wonderful world of animation.
I wouldn't mind paying for it. But if I can get it free.... That's EVEN better!
Wouldn't you agree?
I'm just sad now that I don't get to watch the shows. I hope there's an alternative.
I'll still look out for them, even if it's illegal, or what not.
Lol.I think I WOULD like to sue MPAA for mental trauma. Not what I need for my final year exams. ^_^ - vorlon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apparently BT EFnet *has been sued, according to ZDNET:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5705142.html - WBSpring, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0After reading these posts, you can pick out a few things:
1. TV Show downloaders fit into a few categories.
a. My region has no access
b. I don’t pay for TV, but I want to watch a series / episode
c. I pay for TV, but I wasn’t able to watch a series / episode
d. The MPAA sucks, I’m doing it just to screw them.
2. Copyright laws make no sense.
a. Limiting distribution is a form of censorship
b. If I don’t want you to see it, you can’t
c. If you don’t see it when I want you to, you can’t
d. You can watch it at other times, but only if you buy a device or pay for a service that gives you that ability
The arguments here are over the copyright laws, regardless of the categories above. From the standpoint of laws in general, they change. In the United States it was illegal for a black person to ride in the front of a bus, but now it isn’t. It took a critical mass to stand up in support of what they thought was right (or wrong), thus enacting change. The people who participate in TV show downloading are the mass, although it may not have reached a critical stage yet. This is in accordance with IamLou’s sink or swim statement.
Copyright laws are conflicting, confusing, and not well liked by people, except for the ones who stand to profit from them. However, since the argument is over distribution, how are the trackers being shut down? They provide nothing more than a means of linking people together. No data physically passes through their systems. The true offender is seeder zero. Therefore, any organization looking to enforce digital copyrights needs to target seeder zero.
Here are some questions that I really need answered:
• How is seeder zero any different from a neighbor who tapes the show for you, and you, who gives the show to a friend who missed it?
• Why is it that you can legally purchase equipment to make a copy for yourself or pay for a service that will provide you with copies (TIVO), but obtaining a copy by a free method is illegal?
• Why is it legal for a box office to charge you a 20% convenience fee for purchasing an event ticket when a person who has purchased the ticket can be arrested for selling it above face value (and in some areas for not giving it away for free)?
• If you never distribute a full copy of the show, are you breaking the law?
• Why isn’t I2P being adopted more quickly by torrent downloaders?
• Why is it that Disney releases movies on DVD and then threatens to hide them for 20 years in some “vault�?
• Why download a show that you didn’t have time to watch in the first place? Will you really have time to watch it later?
• Do downloaders save the episodes or just watch them and delete them to make space?
• Since people stop going through red lights after red light cameras are installed, how does the government expect to make enough money to cover the cost? Will they shorten the cycle time on the light so people will become impatient and risk running the light?
• Why are there so many vehicles on the road with hand-written license tags in the window? Is tag loss / theft really THAT big of a problem? And why not use something a little more legible than a number 2 pencil when making a temporary tag?
• What is the magic amount to donate to the police fund so they don’t call you 4 times a year looking for more money?
• When did a half-gallon of ice cream turn into 1.75 quarts?
• Do you still say “half-gallon� even though the quantity is smaller?
• Why does a ring tone cost $1.99 when you can buy 2 full songs for $1.98?
• Can you sue the MPAA for shutting down a torrent site, citing that you are suffering from separation anxiety, loneliness or depression?
• Is anybody even reading this? And, does anybody care?
Well, I've rambled way beyond topic... I wonder if - DarkWolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To all you who think "they have the rights" and "it's the law" can go shoot your dumbass right in the dome. You are a waste of space!
The fact is, we're moving into a new age of information. TV shows and movies are information and for the most part are free because they will ALWAYS be pirated and distributed. The legality of it is a relative case. What law says today may not be the same tomorrow. If we are going to argue the virtues of what is better we can be here forever because that is also relative since we all want something different. The fact is, if it is possible to get it, then it will be taken. We live in an age where we should get what we want. Not because we are selfish ungrateful illegal bastards but because there is absolutely NO POINT in paying for every little service we should get.
We can sit here and argue the economics of it ... but then I am a socialist bastard so I believe we should all share!
Continue to keep information free, share the wealth, and ***** these organizations who oppose us. Someone said "if you want it to change then do something." You couldn't be more right. Lets do something! Lets keep STEALING their ***** ***** until they learn they are powerless to our demands and they must supply in the end. Those who use the advertising argument are ***** morons, advertising is changing as well and that marketing is absolute crap because we can always just change the station.
This digital age brings change and with that change is how we get these services. Until they fit the demands of the people, they will be pirated as we deem fit because WE MAKE THE RULES. Let them try and stop us. - mist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0p.s I'm one of them EVIL beings who buy pirated wares as well! So it would not make ANY difference if I get it off the internet, or off the street peddlers which sells the boxed set DVd's for a fraction of the price. Only thing is that I don't think I would like to pay them the money, I would rather give it to efnet! ( they're much more efficient anyways.)
Lol. as a disclaimer, information that I've posted is not necessarily true! I guess I've just got to find that old TVguide of mine. - tphili17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To those who think people can make money off pay-per-download system for TV shows, I add the following:
1) itunes took quite a while before turning a profit
2) one song is about 1/100th the download size of an hour-long TV show
3) they charge $1 per SONG.
4) people have music playlists containing thousands of songs
5) people have show watchlists containing only hundreds of shows
*** (doing the math) ***
It would cost around $15-$20US per show downloaded to hope to turn a profit. Who wants to pay $400US for a season of 24? For $400 I'd wait for the DVD.
BTW IamLou, I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say "you prefers being a victim...", but the only visible victim has been the entertainment industry. Although taking a tiny bit from their cavernous pockets doesn't seem like victimizing them, it's still stealing. Stop being a killjoy and trying to bring us to the light. It's bloody illegal! Enjoy it! It would not nearly be as fun if it were legal.
Stay cool.
Stay in the shadows. - claude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here's a little remember moment in history, The Stamp Act.
"In 1765 Parliament passed a new tax law - the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act put a tax on all printed paper goods that colonists bought. Colonists had to pay a tax when buying books, newspapers and playing cards. A person who finished college had to pay a tax on the diploma. Lawyers had to pay a tax on the wills, agreements and other documents. To show that the tax had been paid, a stamp seller put a stamp on the paper.
The colonists hated the Stamp Act. In Boston crowds broke the offices of the stamp sellers. They poured hot tar on the sellers and then covered them with feathers. This painful punishment was called tarring and feathering. "
It's a lot harder now to rebel against unjust laws. People here are not attempting to justify their actions, but rather pointing out a different POV that the industry should be thinking about. I won't harp on about how they should realize that they cannot stamp out downloading.
As others have said, I purchase the boxed set of shows that I love. I have even signed petitions asking for more of my favorite shows to come out on DVD.
- DocOrgone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0SO HOW MANY torrent sites can we recommend to see THE DAILY SHOW, Dr. WHO. Btefnet was the best for those. And what about sites that want membership / registration? Isn't that risky? R.
- MacGyver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0from the MPAA press release, "Since we began shutting these sites down, the time that it takes to download a file on BitTorrent has increased exponentially which means the experience of downloading copyrighted films and TV shows is not what it used to be" The MPAA is delusional, they can't actually believe they've affected download speeds.
- WBSpring, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0GWATA,
I didn't expect any answers to those questions, but thank you for the response. I really like the way you think. - anderst2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0kfloydh said:
"I don't understand why I'm allowed to use an antenna that I paid for to bring broadcast TV into my home...but I'm not allowed to use my internet connection that I paid for to bring the same broadcast TV into my home..."
How stupid can you get, no TV stations get any money from your internett access, so they don't make any money from you. That means when you download a tv show from the net, you steal it. Is that so har to understand?
I also download shows, the reason I that over here in Norway, we don't often get many of the shows, and the TV stations don't even send the whole season as is should (NRK and TVNorge is the exception), others stop in the middle of the season, and starts a new one, and calls them a new season. If the had listet Friends by season when it vent on TV2, it would have had 20+ season - EI-DEZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmmm, debating may be useful for our menthal gym, but in the end, ethics or not (since we ALL knew that our downloads were illegal in the first place), where can we start DLing again, with the reliability that BTEfnet used to provide us all with?
- ThaChicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wrote an entire 10page thing just now, but I don't see the point of posting it. I'm just gonna sum this up in a few words, make it simple and easy.
I live outside the US. Sites like this keep me interested in the shows in the US. For an example, I watched Stargate the movie here, then when the series came out, I was happy. When it came out here, it was season 3 in the US. I was willing to have 2 season lag, doesn't matter to me that much, but now its season 9 in the US and season 3-4here and knowing how they do their programming here, it will be season 1 again from the start before it shows season 5.
I would like to know, how is the US industry losing money on me? I refuse to purchase something to watch it once and then resell it. I have cable, so I am paying my fees just like the US. The shows are on the cable, just so many seasons behind I won't watch them cause I have better things to do. Now how is the US film/series industry getting adversly affected by having 1 more fan out there?
I understand that there are problems with people getting the series in the US but still download them in order to skip advertisements which is why this entire thing is abouts. Say what you like but any person who has ever looked at how the world works, its money and the advertisers are losing it. Less viewers = less money to be made on the advertising slots. Face it, in the US, TV is more of an advertisement then an actual place to watch something. Now people want to watch the shows you put on to get them hooked to back to back adverts and your saying: "no, watch my adverts". I don't care what you do in the US.
As you have allready seemingly given up on coming up with a solution and instead are prepared to alienate fans from all over the world to keep your money flow stable, I would suggest that you find out a way to simply have US IP's blocked from a torrent site you yourselfs admin. Have a torrent site where you can download these things for free that has IP blocking of US zones. My personal view is that this is the only way to solve your problems. Shutting one thing down only brings up another and one of these days somebody will have the common sense to put the server/webhosting in a place that can not be shut down by you. Even if you remove every form of webhosting based transfer, you have newsgroups which is the same as webhosted groups, they just profit off of it, you have IRC which is peer to peer and so is a complete seperate entity from the program which is legal.
Final thing to think about for the people shutting these sites down is this - What do you hope to achieve? What do you gain and at what price?
As for people like darkwolf, don't turn this in to some 8year olds idea of some pissant party game. Get a grip. They want money, more importantly, they want your money. They make a product at a high price and then they have to sell it to make their money back and make a profit to make their next show and cover their asses in case a show flops. Thing is, this market may reduce your overal profits, but its not affecting your business. The percentage of money lost compared to the percentage of pure profit you are allready getting. . .I know I don't know these figures, but its more then obvious that the industry is being too damn greedy here. In the end, I pay for my cable, internet, power supply and I want to watch my favourite shows. I won't pay for all these and then pay to get to watch what I'm allready paying for.
And on a side note, I know that some arrangements can be made that will suit all sides. I mean with a leader like bush and the US not being in a state of total self destruction, there must be at least a few people with IQ's higher then their age left in the country to fix whats going wrong.
I believe wholeheartidly that the industry should make money, I also believe that its damaging the industry to have people ripping stuff. But who is it damaging more to stop this? Its only making the industry look bad and making the little people find another source. It won't stop.
=>My views may not be the same as everybody's views in euope and may or may not be true. They may also repeat themselfs on times cause I like to rant on ^-^ As for spelling, nice option, not gonna use it, enjoy reading through the many many mistakes my dyslexia has to offer. - iXneonXi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*spelling : I-*it
- CoZzMiX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't think we should be giving up on BTEFNET just yet http://bt-temp.mine.nu/
- dinki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Tivo can only record one show unless you have the direct tv one which records two at one time but that still leaves 1-2 more shows I need recording. So what do I do? Are you saying I am going to have to suck it up and not watch the final episode after I have been supporting them for the whole season? F that!"
I've got three tuners in my Myth box. You are only limited by your available pci slots and video sources. With the 'new' Hauppage PVR550 (?) you can now get two tuners per slot. - kobe_kafka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0MPAA portrays itself as the almighty protector of copyrights and intellectual property. What a load of crap. Like all organizations it, first and foremost, acts in its own self interest. It has a staff, marketing budgets and operating expenses, just like any organization. And, just like everyone else, it must generate revenue to cover that overhead. They do that by providing a product or service that their membership (i.e. "customer") is willing to pay for. Further, they then "market" (i.e. hype) that service to increase the perceived value of that service, thereby generating greater membership dues (revenue).
The reason for the popularity of torrent sharing is that there is a disparity between supply and demand. There is a definite demand for the television programming being provided by btefnet and other torrent providers. Btefnet and other sites provide the supply. That supply is pretty much free of charge, as the sites really don't generate any substantial revenue streams, that I can perceive.　
Now, the MPAA is going to change that. They are proactively trying to reduce supply, while demand remains constant. What happens? Just like OPEC, prices rise.
As btefnet is free, it almost completely removes the profit motivation for the real pirates. With btefnet around, it’s pretty hard to generate any pirated profit for television torrent. If MPAA succeeds, reducing the supply of free content, they end up providing a monetary incentive for the real pirates to step in and actually generate profit for themselves.
Now for the MPAA this is a good thing. This situation gives them new, bigger and meaner targets to go after. And that of course means more fees (i.e. revenue) from their membership. And, since they are doing such a great job of fighting the great black pirate menace, Dan Glickman and company should get big fat raises, as well.
Now, my question is this: What would happen if Mark Burnett and Donald Trump and all the other producers of this programming actually signed deals with btefnet? Let’s say the basic terms of those deals are that btefnet could distribute their programming, including commercials that are part of the show. The content producers would provide 75% of the commercial programming and btefnet would be free to sell the rest of the commercial time for themselves. I mean, this is already a proven business model as it is the very way television networks started in the first place!
Oh, woops I forgot! This would mean less of the big bad pirates for Dan Glickman to chase after. His membership would problem want to pay less in membership fees, and Mr. Glickman and staff would probably have to take pay cuts.
Do not misunderstand ultimate motivation of the MPAA. If the producers of content were smart, they would find ways of working with the fine folks at btefnet, generating enhanced revenue streams. Right now they are simply dazzled by MPAA propaganda, allowing the MPAA to profit, when it really could be the producers themselves making the cash.
- IamLou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Someone mentioned that we should boycott tv to get back to the MPAA... Yet people like us are not usually US Nielsen Families. Another suggestion, this summer watch TV, Videos, downloads: Don't go see American movies. One more, send an e-mail to your elected representative stating your objections to the MPAA's and the like's lawsuits.
And, by the way, GWATA there are so many mistakes in yours "answers" that I can even begin to tell you how wrong you are... - iXneonXi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0GWATA:
I did not hurt anyone. The companies are *well* aware people are watching their feeds. They also *know* that they are being converted into an Internet friendly codec and hosted on many sites. Out of the large population, few use Big Dishes. Most companies keep their shows unencrypted because it simply costs less and they don't want to pay for more equipment. This is stuff that has been going on for years. - I_Soar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0GWATA:
I'd written this: "Those who invest in the creation of content -- whether that investment is money, time, resources or their natural creative gifts -- have a moral right to control their creations."
And you responded with this: "Although I agree with you statement, the practice of the law does not. Very, VERY few actors have any right to what happens to the content once they sign the contract, it's all in the hands of whose owns the content."
This doesn't have anything to do with the "practice of the law." You already said it yourself: It's about contracts. This is just a semantics point, really. The root of copyright law is that a creator owns his creation. Now, this right can be transferred -- I can sell my song to a music publisher, I can sell my photography services to a newspaper in a standard work-for-hire scenario, I can sell my film script to Universal. Those are simply transfers of rights that, yes, started out with the creator. - fnis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0by: dinki (0) on 08:52 AM 5/13/05 | Score: --
"why is it ok for people with TIVO to record programming & even burn it to dvd, but its not ok to download it? if said TIVO person lent me the DVD & I copied it & lent it to someone else, it's the same exact thing (just not as fast or on as grand a scale)."
"Because the advertisements are still intact. THAT is what pays the major portion of the production costs."
Every person, not retarded, doesn't watch the commercials if they've recorded a show... Personally, I record tv-shows, that I ain't got time to see when aired, to my satellite receiver.. actually, I put all shows that got ad-breaks, on pause, just so I can skip this waste of time (like; go forward 5 minutes), so I ain't watching the gay ads anyways.. Then I shouldn't be allowed to see it on tv I guess?
I really don't see the problem with downloading shows that you haven't got on TV in whatever country you might live in. Some shows will never be aired in many countries, some shows are aired when they're like 2 years old. So no, I don't see the problem with downloading... - iXneonXi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Do any of yall have Big Dishes, its neat u can watch any popular show without commercials :-)
TVrips aren't the greatest quality but the ones ripped from the satellite feeds are good :)
As far as boycotting the MPAA and the RIAA im up to it. No more buyin w/e just watch, eventually there will be a *big* change- we all know what the US has been through. - blondygirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have been reading this site since Thursday night when btefnet went down. There is a lot of interesting reasoning going on.
My husband and I are Americans living in Paraguay. The torrents are our link to home. Before we started downloading tv torrents, we had our family and friends tape our shows for us and mail them to us. Now, we save them the time and money and we can keep up with our beloved shows. Yes, we love Survivor, among many other shows.
There is cable here, and we have it and pay for it. However, many of the shows never come here. (Like Survivor, for instance.) And many that do come here are dubbed into Spanish, which is no good at all, since it just isn't the same. And many of the shows that we are interested are not offered as boxed sets. For example, this is the 10th season of Survivor that is just finishing up. There are only 3 of these 10 available as boxed sets.
We will continue to download shows (and of course, seed them) and continue to enjoy them. - DemonGun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0DO NOT DONATE! Is a FAKE! I've verified the domain owner and is owned by GODADDY.com! The server IP is different too! Correct btefnet.net ip ==>66.102.7.104
Server Used: [ whois.godaddy.com ]
btefnet.com = [ 70.84.62.226 ]
Registrant:
Allen Jorgenson
Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: BTEFNET.COM
Domain servers in listed order:
NS300.HOSTGATOR.COM
NS301.HOSTGATOR.COM
Domain Name: BTEFNET.NET
Registrar: GO DADDY SOFTWARE INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: PARK3.SECURESERVER.NET
Name Server: PARK4.SECURESERVER.NET
Status: ACTIVE
Updated Date: 13-may-2005
Creation Date: 16-oct-2004 - sabbo2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0#bt will be back soon | Website Down | Don't PM the ops or voices !! | www.btefnet.com is NOT us, do not donate! DO NOT DONATE!!!!! THIS IS FROM THE IRC CHANNEL ON EFNET!
- Itaintrite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, you can't say that they don't have a reason for doing so. I mean, FREE network shows aren't the only thing being distributed. Shows from premiere networks, HBO, Star etc are also being upped. And well, you didn't pay for it -> illegal.
Just my 2c. I'm not against file-sharing :) - sp3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0they're asking ppl for money: We are in desprate need of assistance to pay webhosting and design costs for our new website and domain. If you could be kind enough to drop us a couple dollars it would come in very handy. We appreciate your help!!
I can't help I'm just a kid :(
But ppl that can donate pls do it.One more thing: are btefnet.com and btefnet.net the same? - DemonGun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guess someone took over btefnet.com domain name and posted a FAKE donation notice similar to Loki Torrent when it is sued by MPAA.
We are in desprate need of assistance to pay webhosting and design costs for our new website and domain. If you could be kind enough to drop us a
couple dollars it would come in very handy. We appreciate your help!! -
Show 51 - 100 of 188 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is