So suppose I pay for HBO, and I missed the episode of Rome this week. If I download it from a friend (which I would of course never do), have I infringed HBO's property right? Suppose I download something aired on PBS, where I'm a member at my local station -- or even if I'm not, my tax dollars support -- what then?
I'm sure text or LB will tell me it's all bad all the time thanks to the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, but I'm curious. Especially because I'm off to the airport today, where it's all bad television all the time, and the temptation to have something one actually wants to watch is strong....
Well, yeah, that was my question. I'm pretty sure that ethically, the case is clear that as I've paid for it already, I'm not doing any harm by getting it when I want to get it, so long as I don't distribute it -- it's as if I Tivo'ed it to watch later.
But legally, it might be different.
Also, some philosopher might not like my armchair ethics, in which case feel free to explain why I'm wrong.
And thanks for the links, ogged, but it really was a hypothetical: I watched Rome when it aired on Sunday, like a good little subject of the IP empire. Want me to spoil it for you?
There probably are things I would download, if I thought it was ok -- like, you know, The Wire maybe.
Ah, hell, I downloaded The Wire, but now that I intend to watch the whole season, I have to go buy the damn thing. I think the whole season costs something like $75, which is kinda steep.
My legal advice is: Darned if I know -- IP isn't a field that I do much in, but given that you're an HBO subscriber, I can't see much chance of getting in trouble for it.
[The foregoing is not, in fact, legal advice. For all you know, I'm not a lawyer. Hell, for all you know I'm a 47 year old balding man who also isn't a lawyer.]
The ethical comparison breaks down a bit when you think of it this way:
I get the Boston Globe delivered to my house. Now I am in NYC, and can't get to my copy yet, so instead I steal a copy from the local newsstand. Same goes for books, etc.
I know there are various counter arguments, but I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I, for one, don't see the problem with you watching a tv show you could watch anyhow. It's both time- and space-shifting.
The content guys have mainly gone after people for uploading files. You are relatively safe downloading files from a file sharing network as long as you don't share files.
Torrents are a special case since you upload portions of the file at the same time that you download. The uploading is only for a short period of time so it isn't as risky as file sharing but it is still somewhat risky.
That only holds so long as it is a subscription channel without commercials (hobo, skinemax, slowtime). Otherwise, you, they would argue, are costing them future advertising revenue.
Because there are many, many ways to fuck you up the ass, ogged, and, of late, the RIAA has demonstrated a willingness to use the thick, splintery dildo. Because you may have previously indicated that you have downloaded vids ( rec'd by Wettham), which remains illegal - IIRC, it's taping them off of your own set that's OK.
Hasn 't anyone beaten you up, yet, Wolfson? Cripes, what are schools coming to these days? Also, #32 - I don't think there's any substantive difference between the positions of these groups on these matters.
I'm pretty sure that ethically, the case is clear that as I've paid for it already, I'm not doing any harm by getting it when I want to get it, so long as I don't distribute it
The nature of the Bittorrent protocol is such that by downloading you necessarily contribute to the file's distribution to others.
Why? Because you are promoting piracy ogged.
I don't think the INDUCE Act passed, though. Going after the trackers is already legally difficult. Going after people linking to the trackers would, presumably, be even harder. Not that they won't perhaps send a C&D letter and rattle their swords a bit, of course.
But it's all pretty complicated. Ogged could have created instructions on how to "broadcatch": set up your bittorrent client to parse tracker sites' RSS feeds and begin downloading torrents that match particular words (e.g. "The Wire"). Could you get sued for that -- showing someone how to auto-download files that match an arbitrary string?
Unfogged is trying to drive Unrequited Narcissism out of business, I see.
ogged can try, but he won't be able to beat our low, low prices. Or standards, for that matter.
19: This is basically what Apostropher responded with, but the important thing is that digital media goods are non-rivalrous (nb. I only just skimmed the linked post and in fact it might support the argument that there is something wrong with downloading these shows, it seems like it's really interesting though) an attribute not shared by material goods in the vast majority of situations.
This is probably the best general explanation I've seen so far. I'm a pretty avid user, though, and am probably not the person to explain why it's bad (short of purely pragmatic concerns).
Slightly more detail on the tracker sites (and their liability) here. A *very* simple guide to getting started is here (if you really want to do this right, you should be using a better BT client that the one recommended). To find the biggest trackers, head to torrents.to and go to the sites listed in their search engine.
Engadget has a broadcatching howto here (it's out of date, but gives you the general idea).
In Multitude, Hardt and Negri make an interesting argument that IPL have a net-negative effect on human society. I'd recapitulate it for you all, but I'm not at home with my book. Just go abuse amazon's search inside the book feature or something.
I don't see a BT client recommendation in that link at all.
That's because I was keeping it as simple as possible. But it's implicit, because by using the BlogTorrent "Easy Download" link, you install a BT client on your system -- and not a very good one (it's either the vanilla python version or something very similar).
And yes, in NerdSpeak "vanilla python" has a meaning entirely unrelated to the Mineshaft.
Hey wait, Bit Tornado is written in Python! Are you impugning my choice of client? How do you think Bram Cohen would feel to here you abusing Python like that?
You still haven't cured my ethico/legal willies, but it's nevertheless very interesting.
I haven't cured my own, either. I feel no shame about downloading shows that were broadcast over the air, but I'll admit that I download music and movies, too. If I like the product I'll try to patronize its creators in the future or through other means -- but the tip jar approach probably isn't the right way to compensate artists. Personally, I'd like to see a mandatory licensing scheme enacted similar to the deal songwriters get via ASCAP (a souped up version of the Canadian levy on blank media, for example). But that's probably a bit too susceptible to charges of communism to catch on anytime soon.
However the situation shakes out, I've got a feeling the result will be shaped by legal and economic forces more so than by people coming to personal ethical conclusions. And yes, I know that's a cop out.
How do you think Bram Cohen would feel to here you abusing Python like that?
I imagine he would start by moving slowly up your leg, brushing gently through your sparse, boyish leg hair, lightly nipping at the sensitive sking behing your knee, then proceed onward to visit your special, special place.
Downloading "Lost" shouldn't be controversial in the least. ABC broadcast it over public airwaves that anyone with a TV and an antenna can pick up; just as it's absurd to consider the recording of such a program theft, it would be equally asurd to consider sharing the recording of such a program theft.
Slol's right. (I also think it's not absurd.) Even assuming that you'd win in court, who wants to be the other side that vindicates that view? It's easier to just re-program the TiVo.
Sure, but the rewards of sticking it to the man (and screwing those whiny starving writers) far far outweigh any punishment the justice system could meet out.
The downloadable versions (at least those which I'm familiar with) are stripped of advertising. Some might think that makes a difference. Others might think the phrase Ogged was looking for is "mete out."
Well, if I'm going to tape it on my auld VCR and watch it for my own private use (still legal, AFAIK) I'm going to fast-forward through the commercials. So I don't see how I'm depriving them of my eyeballs if I don't watch commercials while viewing the program any other way.
The argument about how you're uploading at the same time as you're downloading, and that this is integral to the technology, carries greater weight -- then you're distributing, rather than simply getting it for your own use.
There was already a Sopranos episode with a totally blatant ad, Tony buying a new vehicle of some kind for his son and discussing its features in a manner utterly irrelevant to the plot.
Yeah, I'm sure bit torrent is really putting J.J. Abrams out on the street. Hell, even Joss Whedon is doing pretty well for himself, and all of his projects but one have bombed.
Seriously, though, how does downloading hurt network television unless the downloaders are Nielsen families?
It's easier to just re-program the TiVo.
It's easier but it's a lot more expensive, and on principle it's just as much "theft" as downloading is. Does the ability to buy a device I can't afford make someone less criminal than me?
Some other questions: is it stealing if you missed the show because your TV's on the fritz? What if you missed an episode and none of your friends recorded it? What if you just started watching a series mid-season and want to catch up? What if the show has only aired in the UK? What if it's aired in the UK but will air in the US a year from now? What if the show has never aired on television at all - a rejected pilot or an unaired episode? Can you steal somethng that was never there in the first place?
then you're distributing, rather than simply getting it for your own use.
I don't see this as a problem, either. If the content is unobjectionable - as unobjectionable as a TiVo'd show or a show you've taped on your VCR - how does your distribution of it change matters?
Re: 70. No, but does that mean that we're going to have a lot of product placement (more than we do already)?
I could see a return of the sponsored show. The opening of Nip/Tuck operated this way a couple of years ago, XM sponsored the whole thing, and it was ad free. They had their message at the beginning and the end. I think you get real bang for the buck that way too, because I remembered who had sponsored it.
Either that or they'll have to make ads that are so good that people want to watvh them.
Re: teh ads. Technically, removing them is illegal. IIRC, TiVo originally had a 30-second jump button on the remote (it still has an easter egg one I think), but the man made TiVo remove the button because skipping over the commercials (as a result of the 7th circuit courts Aimster opinion). More in the comments here.
I notice that I show up in the CT thread Ogged links, making the argument that the implicit contract between viewers, broadcasters, and advertisers means that as a T-Mobile customer I get to sleep with Catherine Zeta-Jones.--And talking to Ogged, too! I'll never make that mistake again.
tweedle - Would the courts then say it's illegal for me to tape a copy of a network TV show via plain old VCR sans commercials, by starting and stopping the recording periodically? I've never heard of any serious legal contest of VCR technology since Sony v Universal; it seems fairly obvious that most of these objections are being raised because of the technology itself (and its popularity), not because of adherence to any consistent principle.
In 2003 Turner executive Jamie Kellner infamously said, "Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Any time you skip a commercial you're actually stealing the programming."
Technology is making it apparent just how at odds the opinions of the advertising industry and the public are. I suspect this'll ultimately shake out into more product placement, ala carte cable, and fewer television shows.
Video on demand makes the idea that networks need to program 24 hours a day a bit silly, anyway (and the idea of networks, for that matter, but nevermind that for now). How many hours of television can one watch in a day, anyway? Surely the Judge Judys of the world could be trimmed away without anyone minding.
TV should only be mainstreamed if it is sufficiently abled to get by in a normal classroom.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:02 AM
So suppose I pay for HBO, and I missed the episode of Rome this week. If I download it from a friend (which I would of course never do), have I infringed HBO's property right? Suppose I download something aired on PBS, where I'm a member at my local station -- or even if I'm not, my tax dollars support -- what then?
I'm sure text or LB will tell me it's all bad all the time thanks to the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, but I'm curious. Especially because I'm off to the airport today, where it's all bad television all the time, and the temptation to have something one actually wants to watch is strong....
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:08 AM
They have TV in jail, slol, so you really can't lose.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:17 AM
But I didn't like Oz.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:23 AM
Don't you have HBO on demand, slolernr?
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:25 AM
BG -- in the airport? On a laptop? Can you do that? If so, I'll sign up, like, now.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:30 AM
As of last night, Sunday's ep of Rome wasn't available on OnDemand, anyway.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:32 AM
It is here, however. Slol, if you already pay for HBO, what's the problem (well, there might be a legal problem, but....)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:34 AM
Smaller download here.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:37 AM
Well, yeah, that was my question. I'm pretty sure that ethically, the case is clear that as I've paid for it already, I'm not doing any harm by getting it when I want to get it, so long as I don't distribute it -- it's as if I Tivo'ed it to watch later.
But legally, it might be different.
Also, some philosopher might not like my armchair ethics, in which case feel free to explain why I'm wrong.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:37 AM
And thanks for the links, ogged, but it really was a hypothetical: I watched Rome when it aired on Sunday, like a good little subject of the IP empire. Want me to spoil it for you?
There probably are things I would download, if I thought it was ok -- like, you know, The Wire maybe.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:40 AM
Ah, hell, I downloaded The Wire, but now that I intend to watch the whole season, I have to go buy the damn thing. I think the whole season costs something like $75, which is kinda steep.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:43 AM
Is it so good that you wouldn't be content with just renting it?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:44 AM
Unfogged is trying to drive Unrequited Narcissism out of business, I see.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:45 AM
Rental, right, forgot about that. Thanks, apo!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:45 AM
B-Wo -- ?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:48 AM
text or LB will tell me it's all bad
My legal advice is: Darned if I know -- IP isn't a field that I do much in, but given that you're an HBO subscriber, I can't see much chance of getting in trouble for it.
[The foregoing is not, in fact, legal advice. For all you know, I'm not a lawyer. Hell, for all you know I'm a 47 year old balding man who also isn't a lawyer.]
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:54 AM
TV should be portable
You've come a long way, baby.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:59 AM
The ethical comparison breaks down a bit when you think of it this way:
I get the Boston Globe delivered to my house. Now I am in NYC, and can't get to my copy yet, so instead I steal a copy from the local newsstand. Same goes for books, etc.
I know there are various counter arguments, but I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I, for one, don't see the problem with you watching a tv show you could watch anyhow. It's both time- and space-shifting.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:00 AM
various counter arguments
The main one being that you didn't cost the TV network any money, while the newspaper eats the cost of materials.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:02 AM
Doesn't bit torrent make you into a distributor of the files as well as a consumer? I'd de-google the post, ogged.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:03 AM
The content guys have mainly gone after people for uploading files. You are relatively safe downloading files from a file sharing network as long as you don't share files.
Torrents are a special case since you upload portions of the file at the same time that you download. The uploading is only for a short period of time so it isn't as risky as file sharing but it is still somewhat risky.
I would rank the risks at:
1) sharing files in a peer-to-peer network.
2) using bit torrent.
3)downloading files from a peer-to-peer network.
they are all illegal though.
Posted by scardy cat | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:03 AM
That only holds so long as it is a subscription channel without commercials (hobo, skinemax, slowtime). Otherwise, you, they would argue, are costing them future advertising revenue.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:04 AM
Why would I de-google the post?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:09 AM
yes, bit-torrent does cause you to upload the file. and even though it is in small chunks, they can find you pretty easily if they want.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:09 AM
Why? Because you are promoting piracy ogged.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:10 AM
In the part where I say I don't think you should download them?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:12 AM
yes. and wink.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:16 AM
No wink. I really don't think you should. Well, I think you can see if you like a show, but if you do, you ought to then get it legally.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:17 AM
Because there are many, many ways to fuck you up the ass, ogged, and, of late, the RIAA has demonstrated a willingness to use the thick, splintery dildo. Because you may have previously indicated that you have downloaded vids ( rec'd by Wettham), which remains illegal - IIRC, it's taping them off of your own set that's OK.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:17 AM
The downloading of TV shows isn't really the concern of the RIAA, is it?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:18 AM
no, but the MPAA and the various studios learned from the RIAA.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:19 AM
Hasn 't anyone beaten you up, yet, Wolfson? Cripes, what are schools coming to these days? Also, #32 - I don't think there's any substantive difference between the positions of these groups on these matters.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:25 AM
32 was to 31.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:26 AM
I'm a pretty burly guy, Tim—people think twice about beating me up.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:26 AM
Is "burly" outmoded?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:27 AM
what are schools coming to these days?
St@nf0rd is in Northern California. They don't have beatings, just earnest discussions of juvenile wrongdoing.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:28 AM
I'm pretty sure that ethically, the case is clear that as I've paid for it already, I'm not doing any harm by getting it when I want to get it, so long as I don't distribute it
The nature of the Bittorrent protocol is such that by downloading you necessarily contribute to the file's distribution to others.
Why? Because you are promoting piracy ogged.
I don't think the INDUCE Act passed, though. Going after the trackers is already legally difficult. Going after people linking to the trackers would, presumably, be even harder. Not that they won't perhaps send a C&D letter and rattle their swords a bit, of course.
But it's all pretty complicated. Ogged could have created instructions on how to "broadcatch": set up your bittorrent client to parse tracker sites' RSS feeds and begin downloading torrents that match particular words (e.g. "The Wire"). Could you get sued for that -- showing someone how to auto-download files that match an arbitrary string?
Unfogged is trying to drive Unrequited Narcissism out of business, I see.
ogged can try, but he won't be able to beat our low, low prices. Or standards, for that matter.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:28 AM
More than twice. People think about it all the time.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:29 AM
39 to 35.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:30 AM
tom, do you have one or two posts where you explain this whole thing, how it works and why it's bad, for teh n00bzorz?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:33 AM
19: This is basically what Apostropher responded with, but the important thing is that digital media goods are non-rivalrous (nb. I only just skimmed the linked post and in fact it might support the argument that there is something wrong with downloading these shows, it seems like it's really interesting though) an attribute not shared by material goods in the vast majority of situations.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:39 AM
This is probably the best general explanation I've seen so far. I'm a pretty avid user, though, and am probably not the person to explain why it's bad (short of purely pragmatic concerns).
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:42 AM
41: two out of three.
Slightly more detail on the tracker sites (and their liability) here. A *very* simple guide to getting started is here (if you really want to do this right, you should be using a better BT client that the one recommended). To find the biggest trackers, head to torrents.to and go to the sites listed in their search engine.
Engadget has a broadcatching howto here (it's out of date, but gives you the general idea).
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:45 AM
In Multitude, Hardt and Negri make an interesting argument that IPL have a net-negative effect on human society. I'd recapitulate it for you all, but I'm not at home with my book. Just go abuse amazon's search inside the book feature or something.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:45 AM
I don't see a BT client recommendation in that link at all.
I use Bit Tornado to download ISOs and non-copyrighted music. Even big-league label honcho Steve Feigenbaum thinks dimadozen's ok!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:51 AM
I don't see a BT client recommendation in that link at all.
That's because I was keeping it as simple as possible. But it's implicit, because by using the BlogTorrent "Easy Download" link, you install a BT client on your system -- and not a very good one (it's either the vanilla python version or something very similar).
And yes, in NerdSpeak "vanilla python" has a meaning entirely unrelated to the Mineshaft.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:55 AM
Nice, tom. I wish I'd found my way to your blog sooner.
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:56 AM
Hey wait, Bit Tornado is written in Python! Are you impugning my choice of client? How do you think Bram Cohen would feel to here you abusing Python like that?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 11:58 AM
Thanks, tom and Tarrou, that's very educational. You still haven't cured my ethico/legal willies, but it's nevertheless very interesting.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 12:27 PM
You still haven't cured my ethico/legal willies, but it's nevertheless very interesting.
I haven't cured my own, either. I feel no shame about downloading shows that were broadcast over the air, but I'll admit that I download music and movies, too. If I like the product I'll try to patronize its creators in the future or through other means -- but the tip jar approach probably isn't the right way to compensate artists. Personally, I'd like to see a mandatory licensing scheme enacted similar to the deal songwriters get via ASCAP (a souped up version of the Canadian levy on blank media, for example). But that's probably a bit too susceptible to charges of communism to catch on anytime soon.
However the situation shakes out, I've got a feeling the result will be shaped by legal and economic forces more so than by people coming to personal ethical conclusions. And yes, I know that's a cop out.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 12:44 PM
How do you think Bram Cohen would feel to here you abusing Python like that?
I imagine he would start by moving slowly up your leg, brushing gently through your sparse, boyish leg hair, lightly nipping at the sensitive sking behing your knee, then proceed onward to visit your special, special place.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 12:53 PM
What?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 1:10 PM
Cohen would feel to here you
Are you trolling us, Wolfson?
sking behing
Ring a ding ding!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 1:13 PM
I can't stop laughting, apo, darn you.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 1:23 PM
OK, I stopped. All clear.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 1:27 PM
Downloading "Lost" shouldn't be controversial in the least. ABC broadcast it over public airwaves that anyone with a TV and an antenna can pick up; just as it's absurd to consider the recording of such a program theft, it would be equally asurd to consider sharing the recording of such a program theft.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 5:28 PM
Yes, but "absurd" ≠ "contrary to appellate-court reasoning".
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 5:32 PM
Slol's right. (I also think it's not absurd.) Even assuming that you'd win in court, who wants to be the other side that vindicates that view? It's easier to just re-program the TiVo.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 5:38 PM
Sure, but the rewards of sticking it to the man (and screwing those whiny starving writers) far far outweigh any punishment the justice system could meet out.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 5:40 PM
The downloadable versions (at least those which I'm familiar with) are stripped of advertising. Some might think that makes a difference. Others might think the phrase Ogged was looking for is "mete out."
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 5:48 PM
Oops.
Right, the commercials. I had a big argument about this with someone at Crooked Timber once, but I can't even remember which side I took.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 5:49 PM
Well, if I'm going to tape it on my auld VCR and watch it for my own private use (still legal, AFAIK) I'm going to fast-forward through the commercials. So I don't see how I'm depriving them of my eyeballs if I don't watch commercials while viewing the program any other way.
The argument about how you're uploading at the same time as you're downloading, and that this is integral to the technology, carries greater weight -- then you're distributing, rather than simply getting it for your own use.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 5:52 PM
I think you're all forgetting about reruns and the fact that they have different commercials in them.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 5:56 PM
Ah, here's the CT thread. I'm pretty sure I was just being an ass. I still miss jhp.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 5:58 PM
There was already a Sopranos episode with a totally blatant ad, Tony buying a new vehicle of some kind for his son and discussing its features in a manner utterly irrelevant to the plot.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 6:04 PM
(and screwing those whiny starving writers)
Yeah, I'm sure bit torrent is really putting J.J. Abrams out on the street. Hell, even Joss Whedon is doing pretty well for himself, and all of his projects but one have bombed.
Seriously, though, how does downloading hurt network television unless the downloaders are Nielsen families?
It's easier to just re-program the TiVo.
It's easier but it's a lot more expensive, and on principle it's just as much "theft" as downloading is. Does the ability to buy a device I can't afford make someone less criminal than me?
Some other questions: is it stealing if you missed the show because your TV's on the fritz? What if you missed an episode and none of your friends recorded it? What if you just started watching a series mid-season and want to catch up? What if the show has only aired in the UK? What if it's aired in the UK but will air in the US a year from now? What if the show has never aired on television at all - a rejected pilot or an unaired episode? Can you steal somethng that was never there in the first place?
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 6:31 PM
The downloadable versions (at least those which I'm familiar with) are stripped of advertising.
TiVo strips out the ads, too. Again, does the ability to buy a TiVo make it not-theft?
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 6:33 PM
then you're distributing, rather than simply getting it for your own use.
I don't see this as a problem, either. If the content is unobjectionable - as unobjectionable as a TiVo'd show or a show you've taped on your VCR - how does your distribution of it change matters?
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 6:36 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that the current model of advertising is not going to survive for long, piracy or not?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 6:38 PM
Re: 70. No, but does that mean that we're going to have a lot of product placement (more than we do already)?
I could see a return of the sponsored show. The opening of Nip/Tuck operated this way a couple of years ago, XM sponsored the whole thing, and it was ad free. They had their message at the beginning and the end. I think you get real bang for the buck that way too, because I remembered who had sponsored it.
Either that or they'll have to make ads that are so good that people want to watvh them.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 6:45 PM
Re 70: I know nothing of the current model of advertising, beyond the notion that twincest is meant to make me buy beer.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 6:50 PM
Re: teh ads. Technically, removing them is illegal. IIRC, TiVo originally had a 30-second jump button on the remote (it still has an easter egg one I think), but the man made TiVo remove the button because skipping over the commercials (as a result of the 7th circuit courts Aimster opinion). More in the comments here.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 7:55 PM
I notice that I show up in the CT thread Ogged links, making the argument that the implicit contract between viewers, broadcasters, and advertisers means that as a T-Mobile customer I get to sleep with Catherine Zeta-Jones.--And talking to Ogged, too! I'll never make that mistake again.
Hey Ogged, did Posner ever get back to you?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 8:18 PM
tweedle - Would the courts then say it's illegal for me to tape a copy of a network TV show via plain old VCR sans commercials, by starting and stopping the recording periodically? I've never heard of any serious legal contest of VCR technology since Sony v Universal; it seems fairly obvious that most of these objections are being raised because of the technology itself (and its popularity), not because of adherence to any consistent principle.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 10-14-05 1:23 AM
In 2003 Turner executive Jamie Kellner infamously said, "Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Any time you skip a commercial you're actually stealing the programming."
Technology is making it apparent just how at odds the opinions of the advertising industry and the public are. I suspect this'll ultimately shake out into more product placement, ala carte cable, and fewer television shows.
Video on demand makes the idea that networks need to program 24 hours a day a bit silly, anyway (and the idea of networks, for that matter, but nevermind that for now). How many hours of television can one watch in a day, anyway? Surely the Judge Judys of the world could be trimmed away without anyone minding.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 10-16-05 4:39 PM