About this legal vs. illegal debate, you have to realize that there are 2 kinds of laws. Laws that should be obeyed, and laws that are meant to be broken.
An example of an important law, that should not be broken, is stuff like murder or theft of actual, physical property. I agree that such laws should be enforced.
However, there are plenty of laws that don't fall into that category, such as speed limits when driving. I have yet to meet a person who will always obey a 25mph speed limit in San Fransico's residential areas. Most people drive 30-35, and it's FINE.
Now, back on topic... I think that this crusade by software giants, RIAA and the movie industry is idiotic. Why, you ask? Because the reason people seek out free downloads of music, software or music is not because all downloaders are inherently evil and want to get everything for free. It's because the methods for accessing such information otherwise are flawed.
What if I buy a software program and don't like it? Tough luck... my best bet would be to resell for a fraction of the price I paid. With music, it used to be that I had to pay about $20 to get 1-2 songs I actually liked. Now it's getting better, it's possible to use online music stores like the iTunes store to purchase music. however, even such music is usually restricted in how it can be used. For example, it used to be that it was illegal to take online purchased music outside of the US. So if I had an ipod, bought a few songs from iTunes and then flew with my ipod to France for a weekend, I'd be breaking the law. Like I said, idiotic.
As far as the film industry... actual movies are such huge downloads, and in such a poor format, that no serious movie enthusiast would ever take advantage of this. If there's a good movie out, I'd watch it in the movie theater as soon as it's available. If it's crap, I may have downloaded it to watch it. But now that I can't download it, I will never even consider renting it or getting the DVD. I'll just wait until it's out on cable.
Now for TV series -- here, the case is different from movies. There have been a number of shows (24 and Lost are good examples) where I hear a lot of good things about the show 2-3 weeks after it starts. Given the nature of the those shows, it's hard to get into them 2-3 weeks late because I'd be missing too much information. So what do I do? I download the first 2-3 episodes to catch up, and then loyally watch all subsequent episodes live, increasing the channel's number of viewers and therefore increasing ad revenues. Had I not used bittorrent to download earlier episodes, I probably would never bother to watch those shows at all.
Just to clarify... I am not saying that everyone should be free to download anything they wish free of charge, consequently robbing the creative team behind the downloaded item of their well-earner $. I just think that blindly enforcing existing laws will not get us anywhere. The system is flawed, and the way to fix it is not to kill off alternatives. It's to take a step back, admit that there's a problem, and provide electronic access to films and TV shows. Some services are planned to address such needs, but they won't be available for years.
I probably don't have the time or karma for this argument, but if I may, allow me to toss in my .02 to this epic battle of wills - and apologies to all involved - but I've got two words for you.
Anime. Fansubs.
Some of us - and you know who you are - have vast anime collections legitimately bought on DVD. Can you honestly say that you would have bought that 150$ box set without first seeing at least a handful of episodes?
Same as Ahash, I don't own a tv either. I can't afford it - heck, I can barely afford food most months.
I used to have the world's smallest violin playing 24/7 in my wallet - but then the repo men came and took it away. :D
Once a week, I download Lost, haul my computer out into our cramped living room, and the three of us watch it on my monitor, and then the machine goes back into storage. We can barely pay our internet bill, let alone cable. Art students are [i]poor[/i].
Despite that, will at least one of buy the Lost DVD box set when it's out? Almost certainly.
[quote]Now for TV series -- here, the case is different from movies. There have been a number of shows (24 and Lost are good examples) where I hear a lot of good things about the show 2-3 weeks after it starts. Given the nature of the those shows, it's hard to get into them 2-3 weeks late because I'd be missing too much information. So what do I do? I download the first 2-3 episodes to catch up, and then loyally watch all subsequent episodes live, increasing the channel's number of viewers and therefore increasing ad revenues. Had I not used bittorrent to download earlier episodes, I probably would never bother to watch those shows at all.[/quote]
I think 99.9% of the people here agree with you, their problem with me downloading it however, is that I will lack cable TV, and am wanting to download SG1, after it's initial viewing in the US.
Since I am not paying for cable, I have no right to that show. However even if I asked my parents to tape SG1, I couldn't watch said tape at my apartment.
This is where I say it's utterly stupid, my Dad will watch it, there's my viewers record right there. I'm not downloading the show before it airs, I'm downloading it afterwards.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
I think Arik that you have taken it way off base. We are not discussing whether or not you should do something that is illegal but rather whether or not something really should be illegal in the first place.
just found out the girls down the hall are going to have cable, and one of them likes stargate. [img]http://www.halflife2.net/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif[/img]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I mostly agree with what Arik said. I think the system is fundamentally flawed given the nature of today's society and technology and the companies making the money off current systems need to admit this and update their business practices.
I also think that there is nothing morally wrong with downloading a few episodes from the beginning to see what it's like before buying it on DVD (or to catch up with the broadcast).
I still think that every TV station should do webcast....and allow shows to be downloaded off the official sites with their advertising...
which brings up another point...
The whole idea behind cable was that cable pays for the TV stations, ergo no commercials, right?
So WHY ARE THERE SO MANY COMMERCIALS?!? :eek:
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Well...that is two fold:
There is the price to cover the cable line connection. Then there is the price to cover the material you are watching. The intro basic plans only cover the cable line connection and the cable company's cost. Thus, in order to make it worth your time to get it, they place on stations that have commercials so they don't have to pay. Additionally, if you were to pay for all those stations that have commercials, you would probably wind up having to add another couple hundred dollars to every month's bill. The advanced plans cover the cost of some the stations you are getting (those that don't have commercials), but cable companies say "we want more people to get this becuase we make more money on it" so they stick on a few popular stations with commercials to get more people to buy a plan that only costs you more money to get stuff you never watch.
This is one reason why satellite TV is so important: it gives people more then one option so cable companies can't abuse their monopolies.
Something A# and practically everyone else seems to be missing:
Broadcast television [i][b]is not free[/b][/i]. We simply use a different currency to pay for it, that being commercials. Broadcast television is funded by corporations who want exposure in the commercials; if they start to believe that we don't watch those commercials, then broadcasters will have to lower their asking price for commercial slots, which would cut into their revenue, which in turn would cut into their budget for funding and producing television shows. This would lead to either fewer shows or lower quality in those shows; certainly, there'd be an increase in the trend towards cheaply-made (and usually mind-numbing) programming such as reality television.
I don't much mind commercials when watching television for precisely that reason: I recognize that watching them is how I compensate the broadcaster for providing me with content. My preference would be to pay the broadcaster (or, better yet, the studio) directly for content, but that's not an easily viable option over the airways.
Yeah, my rant may be perceived as off-topic, but I think that whenever anyone talks about the legality of information transfers (either side of the argument), regardless of what that information is, it's important to realize what is at the core of that argument, which is the point that Biggles reiterated. Sure, we could talk about the specifics, but then the expression "can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind. It'd be futile. I understand that each person is entitled to his/her own opinion about whether downloading is legal or not (whatever the circumstances surrounding the download may be), but the bottom line is that everyone will agree that the laws currently in place are antiquated, and need to be rewritten.
We are well into our second decade of "Information Age", meaning that since early 90s, the Internet was basically available to consumers who were interested in it. And the reason I ranted about ownership, copyrights, and the massive lawsuit campaigns waged by RIAA et al is because I find that really disturbing. They are wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and they don't even "get" what the problem is. The fact that some of their lawsuits succeeds is disturbing because it confirms my belief about a huge gap in knowledge and understanding of modern problems by those currently in power.
Anyway, I'll stop ranting now...
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Bekenn: There are already quite a LOT of extrodinarily low quality shows out there, yet the income from commercials is higher then it was a decade ago.
Wow Bekenn, I didn't think anyone aside from kids watched commercials these days. (Kids only because they LOVE seeing what the next new toy is...)
I always tape the show and watch it an hour later so I can skip the annoying adverts. Usually there is like, one commercial a month thats worth watching. :)
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arik [/i]
[B]I understand that each person is entitled to his/her own opinion about whether downloading is legal or not (whatever the circumstances surrounding the download may be)[/B][/QUOTE]
Regarding this point: each person is entitled to their opinion of downloading's legality, but that won't change the fact that if there is someone/some company who holds a license to distribute the content in your country then it is very much illegal, unless said person/company has said "Yeah, sure, download at will."
The tricky question is if it is morally right or not.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
Regarding this point: each person is entitled to their opinion of downloading's legality, but that won't change the fact that if there is someone/some company who holds a license to distribute the content [B]in your country [/B]then it is very much illegal, unless said person/company has said "Yeah, sure, download at will."
The tricky question is if it is morally right or not. [/QUOTE]
Aren't copyrights international? If you mean 'if it's not licensed here it's okay' then grabbing BSG episodes would be fine. (But I don't, because I can't stand that series...) But if you see a license as being global, then all anime downloads are illegal as well.
Let he who is without sin...
I apologize if I come off as confrontational; it's just that reading the chat log, I see a group of people hounding one guy, and my innate under-dog genes o' brotherhood kick in. :)
Bekenn: Let's not forget product placement! :D
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Copyrights are international. The argument with fansubs is that there is no licensed distributor outside of Japan. This is what makes fansubs a grey area (but still rather dark grey). BSG, on the other hand, has a licensed distributor in the states. License and copyright are not the same thing.
I never claim to be a lawyer though. That is just my understanding.
My argument in that chat was that A# was claiming to have a right to download all of SG1.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]Wow Bekenn, I didn't think anyone aside from kids watched commercials these days. (Kids only because they LOVE seeing what the next new toy is...)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah well they need to Brainwash the kids into being Comsumer Whores, or else who is going to buy there stuff in the future. Sick Capitalist.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]Regarding this point: each person is entitled to their opinion of downloading's legality, but that won't change the fact that if there is someone/some company who holds a license to distribute the content in your country then it is very much illegal, unless said person/company has said "Yeah, sure, download at will."
The tricky question is if it is morally right or not. [/B][/QUOTE]
Agreed. I do not question the fact that it is illegal to download commercial software, music or movies/tv shows. My point was indeed about the moral aspect of the decision and the fact that I personally disagree with the legal system on this particular aspect of it, as it stands today.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Squidgy [/i]
[B]
I apologize if I come off as confrontational; it's just that reading the chat log, I see a group of people hounding one guy, and my innate under-dog genes o' brotherhood kick in. :)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Hey! Thats my line.... :D
And honestly, arguments never really phase me. Some see that as good, others as bad, myself? It's both. I am curious as to how long the ban period is on the chat room though. ;) (I mean, I only visit like once a month anyway, but nice to have it there...)
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Personally I think several things need to be done:
1. If they are going to go after people, target those that distribute, not those that download. People who download, while illegal, don't always recognize it as such. Those that distribute almost always do. Someone had to pirate it initially in order for people to have it available.
2. Recognize that no matter what they do they cannot stop the software - it is both too easy to write and too hard to control distribution. purple
3. Recognize that that internet needs to be utilized for their own distribution. iTunes and the like have started this with music, but nothing has come along in the way of TV or Movies to compete. Part of this might be bandwidth required...but I think it is more a product of "executive technophobia."
Until the industry does those things they are going to continue to both have resentment of their methods and yet not create an alternative that law-abiding people will use. How hard would it be to have a pay-to-download or ad-on-the-fly-on-download system created that would allow revenue from internet TV and Movies? The biggest problem comes with distribution...which would be a technical issue.
Don't attack the technology, instead go after those that abuse it. People that copy Movies on tapes get prosecuted. Those that make the VCRs don't. From that, how is there any precident that would allow software makers get prosecuted over how their product is used?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]Personally I think several things need to be done:
1. If they are going to go after people, target those that distribute, not those that download. People who download, while illegal, don't always recognize it as such. Those that distribute almost always do. Someone had to pirate it initially in order for people to have it available.[/quote]
Um...that's what they're doing.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
No. They have also been heavily targeting the people that download also. Often without the legal aged owner knowing anything of what the child or grandchild is doing.
however Biggles did tell me about some place that lets you rent movies online...
myself, it should be BUY online, for about 1/4th the cost of buying the DVD, at about 1/2DVD quality. so a 300-500MB download for the average movie, and at fairly good quality, for about 5$ US
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]No. They have also been heavily targeting the people that download also. Often without the legal aged owner knowing anything of what the child or grandchild is doing. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, they're targeting people that download and SHARE the videos.
The people the RIAA has targeted are those who download tons of MP3s or movies and leave them in their shared files folder. In other words, they're also distributing the files, not just downloading them.
I'm not saying it's right to go after the kids, but you're incorrect saying that they're going after people who only download the files.
Gah, I'll have to dig up a news report of them sueing for downloading only, but I know they have.
They don't hit them as often, but they HAVE done it as a scare tactic.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]Gah, I'll have to dig up a news report of them sueing for downloading only, but I know they have.
They don't hit them as often, but they HAVE done it as a scare tactic. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, they have. But it's not where most of their effort is going.
RC's post implied that they're going after downloaders more than distributors, which just isn't true.
IMO the moviw and recording industries are being complete morons on this issue, though companies like Apple are starting to capitalize on this shortcoming...what I'm saying is that rather than cracking down on the torrent community, hollywood and the networks should actually support the streams.
Ask yourself the question: "What pays for TV?"
It's not your DirecTV or Cable bill---it's the ads.
So, how do you get around this issue?
The networks should, after broadcast, torrent copies with media license attachments that include the commercials.
Why is this beneficial?
1. It won't compete with first run nature of the network broadcast.
2. It keeps the revenue stream in the form of advertising attached to the show. In fact, the networks could demand more for "persistant" ads that stay with the download.
3. Traceability and trackability. Downloading would be more trackable than the Neilsen ratings, at they would be able to record 100% of the copies downloaded, via media rights management software in the player (be it Windows Media, QuickTime or DivX).
Now, let me be clear, I DON'T ADVOCATE THEFT, but, in a situation such as Jack's, I believe that is a "safe bet" case on his rights to ownership of his license of the aforementioned videos.
Comments
An example of an important law, that should not be broken, is stuff like murder or theft of actual, physical property. I agree that such laws should be enforced.
However, there are plenty of laws that don't fall into that category, such as speed limits when driving. I have yet to meet a person who will always obey a 25mph speed limit in San Fransico's residential areas. Most people drive 30-35, and it's FINE.
Now, back on topic... I think that this crusade by software giants, RIAA and the movie industry is idiotic. Why, you ask? Because the reason people seek out free downloads of music, software or music is not because all downloaders are inherently evil and want to get everything for free. It's because the methods for accessing such information otherwise are flawed.
What if I buy a software program and don't like it? Tough luck... my best bet would be to resell for a fraction of the price I paid. With music, it used to be that I had to pay about $20 to get 1-2 songs I actually liked. Now it's getting better, it's possible to use online music stores like the iTunes store to purchase music. however, even such music is usually restricted in how it can be used. For example, it used to be that it was illegal to take online purchased music outside of the US. So if I had an ipod, bought a few songs from iTunes and then flew with my ipod to France for a weekend, I'd be breaking the law. Like I said, idiotic.
As far as the film industry... actual movies are such huge downloads, and in such a poor format, that no serious movie enthusiast would ever take advantage of this. If there's a good movie out, I'd watch it in the movie theater as soon as it's available. If it's crap, I may have downloaded it to watch it. But now that I can't download it, I will never even consider renting it or getting the DVD. I'll just wait until it's out on cable.
Now for TV series -- here, the case is different from movies. There have been a number of shows (24 and Lost are good examples) where I hear a lot of good things about the show 2-3 weeks after it starts. Given the nature of the those shows, it's hard to get into them 2-3 weeks late because I'd be missing too much information. So what do I do? I download the first 2-3 episodes to catch up, and then loyally watch all subsequent episodes live, increasing the channel's number of viewers and therefore increasing ad revenues. Had I not used bittorrent to download earlier episodes, I probably would never bother to watch those shows at all.
Just to clarify... I am not saying that everyone should be free to download anything they wish free of charge, consequently robbing the creative team behind the downloaded item of their well-earner $. I just think that blindly enforcing existing laws will not get us anywhere. The system is flawed, and the way to fix it is not to kill off alternatives. It's to take a step back, admit that there's a problem, and provide electronic access to films and TV shows. Some services are planned to address such needs, but they won't be available for years.
Until then, I'll keep downloading.
Anime. Fansubs.
Some of us - and you know who you are - have vast anime collections legitimately bought on DVD. Can you honestly say that you would have bought that 150$ box set without first seeing at least a handful of episodes?
Same as Ahash, I don't own a tv either. I can't afford it - heck, I can barely afford food most months.
I used to have the world's smallest violin playing 24/7 in my wallet - but then the repo men came and took it away. :D
Once a week, I download Lost, haul my computer out into our cramped living room, and the three of us watch it on my monitor, and then the machine goes back into storage. We can barely pay our internet bill, let alone cable. Art students are [i]poor[/i].
Despite that, will at least one of buy the Lost DVD box set when it's out? Almost certainly.
I think 99.9% of the people here agree with you, their problem with me downloading it however, is that I will lack cable TV, and am wanting to download SG1, after it's initial viewing in the US.
Since I am not paying for cable, I have no right to that show. However even if I asked my parents to tape SG1, I couldn't watch said tape at my apartment.
This is where I say it's utterly stupid, my Dad will watch it, there's my viewers record right there. I'm not downloading the show before it airs, I'm downloading it afterwards.
just found out the girls down the hall are going to have cable, and one of them likes stargate. [img]http://www.halflife2.net/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif[/img]
I also think that there is nothing morally wrong with downloading a few episodes from the beginning to see what it's like before buying it on DVD (or to catch up with the broadcast).
which brings up another point...
The whole idea behind cable was that cable pays for the TV stations, ergo no commercials, right?
So WHY ARE THERE SO MANY COMMERCIALS?!? :eek:
There is the price to cover the cable line connection. Then there is the price to cover the material you are watching. The intro basic plans only cover the cable line connection and the cable company's cost. Thus, in order to make it worth your time to get it, they place on stations that have commercials so they don't have to pay. Additionally, if you were to pay for all those stations that have commercials, you would probably wind up having to add another couple hundred dollars to every month's bill. The advanced plans cover the cost of some the stations you are getting (those that don't have commercials), but cable companies say "we want more people to get this becuase we make more money on it" so they stick on a few popular stations with commercials to get more people to buy a plan that only costs you more money to get stuff you never watch.
This is one reason why satellite TV is so important: it gives people more then one option so cable companies can't abuse their monopolies.
Broadcast television [i][b]is not free[/b][/i]. We simply use a different currency to pay for it, that being commercials. Broadcast television is funded by corporations who want exposure in the commercials; if they start to believe that we don't watch those commercials, then broadcasters will have to lower their asking price for commercial slots, which would cut into their revenue, which in turn would cut into their budget for funding and producing television shows. This would lead to either fewer shows or lower quality in those shows; certainly, there'd be an increase in the trend towards cheaply-made (and usually mind-numbing) programming such as reality television.
I don't much mind commercials when watching television for precisely that reason: I recognize that watching them is how I compensate the broadcaster for providing me with content. My preference would be to pay the broadcaster (or, better yet, the studio) directly for content, but that's not an easily viable option over the airways.
We are well into our second decade of "Information Age", meaning that since early 90s, the Internet was basically available to consumers who were interested in it. And the reason I ranted about ownership, copyrights, and the massive lawsuit campaigns waged by RIAA et al is because I find that really disturbing. They are wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and they don't even "get" what the problem is. The fact that some of their lawsuits succeeds is disturbing because it confirms my belief about a huge gap in knowledge and understanding of modern problems by those currently in power.
Anyway, I'll stop ranting now...
I always tape the show and watch it an hour later so I can skip the annoying adverts. Usually there is like, one commercial a month thats worth watching. :)
[B]I understand that each person is entitled to his/her own opinion about whether downloading is legal or not (whatever the circumstances surrounding the download may be)[/B][/QUOTE]
Regarding this point: each person is entitled to their opinion of downloading's legality, but that won't change the fact that if there is someone/some company who holds a license to distribute the content in your country then it is very much illegal, unless said person/company has said "Yeah, sure, download at will."
The tricky question is if it is morally right or not.
Regarding this point: each person is entitled to their opinion of downloading's legality, but that won't change the fact that if there is someone/some company who holds a license to distribute the content [B]in your country [/B]then it is very much illegal, unless said person/company has said "Yeah, sure, download at will."
The tricky question is if it is morally right or not. [/QUOTE]
Aren't copyrights international? If you mean 'if it's not licensed here it's okay' then grabbing BSG episodes would be fine. (But I don't, because I can't stand that series...) But if you see a license as being global, then all anime downloads are illegal as well.
Let he who is without sin...
I apologize if I come off as confrontational; it's just that reading the chat log, I see a group of people hounding one guy, and my innate under-dog genes o' brotherhood kick in. :)
Bekenn: Let's not forget product placement! :D
I never claim to be a lawyer though. That is just my understanding.
My argument in that chat was that A# was claiming to have a right to download all of SG1.
[B]Wow Bekenn, I didn't think anyone aside from kids watched commercials these days. (Kids only because they LOVE seeing what the next new toy is...)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah well they need to Brainwash the kids into being Comsumer Whores, or else who is going to buy there stuff in the future. Sick Capitalist.
[B]Regarding this point: each person is entitled to their opinion of downloading's legality, but that won't change the fact that if there is someone/some company who holds a license to distribute the content in your country then it is very much illegal, unless said person/company has said "Yeah, sure, download at will."
The tricky question is if it is morally right or not. [/B][/QUOTE]
Agreed. I do not question the fact that it is illegal to download commercial software, music or movies/tv shows. My point was indeed about the moral aspect of the decision and the fact that I personally disagree with the legal system on this particular aspect of it, as it stands today.
[B]
I apologize if I come off as confrontational; it's just that reading the chat log, I see a group of people hounding one guy, and my innate under-dog genes o' brotherhood kick in. :)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Hey! Thats my line.... :D
And honestly, arguments never really phase me. Some see that as good, others as bad, myself? It's both. I am curious as to how long the ban period is on the chat room though. ;) (I mean, I only visit like once a month anyway, but nice to have it there...)
1. If they are going to go after people, target those that distribute, not those that download. People who download, while illegal, don't always recognize it as such. Those that distribute almost always do. Someone had to pirate it initially in order for people to have it available.
2. Recognize that no matter what they do they cannot stop the software - it is both too easy to write and too hard to control distribution. purple
3. Recognize that that internet needs to be utilized for their own distribution. iTunes and the like have started this with music, but nothing has come along in the way of TV or Movies to compete. Part of this might be bandwidth required...but I think it is more a product of "executive technophobia."
Until the industry does those things they are going to continue to both have resentment of their methods and yet not create an alternative that law-abiding people will use. How hard would it be to have a pay-to-download or ad-on-the-fly-on-download system created that would allow revenue from internet TV and Movies? The biggest problem comes with distribution...which would be a technical issue.
Don't attack the technology, instead go after those that abuse it. People that copy Movies on tapes get prosecuted. Those that make the VCRs don't. From that, how is there any precident that would allow software makers get prosecuted over how their product is used?
--RC
[B]Personally I think several things need to be done:
1. If they are going to go after people, target those that distribute, not those that download. People who download, while illegal, don't always recognize it as such. Those that distribute almost always do. Someone had to pirate it initially in order for people to have it available.[/quote]
Um...that's what they're doing.
however Biggles did tell me about some place that lets you rent movies online...
myself, it should be BUY online, for about 1/4th the cost of buying the DVD, at about 1/2DVD quality. so a 300-500MB download for the average movie, and at fairly good quality, for about 5$ US
[B]No. They have also been heavily targeting the people that download also. Often without the legal aged owner knowing anything of what the child or grandchild is doing. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, they're targeting people that download and SHARE the videos.
The people the RIAA has targeted are those who download tons of MP3s or movies and leave them in their shared files folder. In other words, they're also distributing the files, not just downloading them.
I'm not saying it's right to go after the kids, but you're incorrect saying that they're going after people who only download the files.
They don't hit them as often, but they HAVE done it as a scare tactic.
[B]Gah, I'll have to dig up a news report of them sueing for downloading only, but I know they have.
They don't hit them as often, but they HAVE done it as a scare tactic. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, they have. But it's not where most of their effort is going.
RC's post implied that they're going after downloaders more than distributors, which just isn't true.
Ask yourself the question: "What pays for TV?"
It's not your DirecTV or Cable bill---it's the ads.
So, how do you get around this issue?
The networks should, after broadcast, torrent copies with media license attachments that include the commercials.
Why is this beneficial?
1. It won't compete with first run nature of the network broadcast.
2. It keeps the revenue stream in the form of advertising attached to the show. In fact, the networks could demand more for "persistant" ads that stay with the download.
3. Traceability and trackability. Downloading would be more trackable than the Neilsen ratings, at they would be able to record 100% of the copies downloaded, via media rights management software in the player (be it Windows Media, QuickTime or DivX).
Now, let me be clear, I DON'T ADVOCATE THEFT, but, in a situation such as Jack's, I believe that is a "safe bet" case on his rights to ownership of his license of the aforementioned videos.
IMO.
The ever-vorlonic,
-R.