With all the news about legal television show downloads, I thought it was interesting that there were two ads on TVGude.com for companies that appear to help you download tv shows illegally (I was searching for "E.R.").
The MPAA recently pursuaded a California court to force MP3downloadcity.com to stop advertising because they "alleging that the website fooled consumers into believing that a $24.95 subscription to the service allowed for legal peer to peer file swapping." Six additional sites have been targeted by the MPAA.
“These kinds of scam websites are not only hurting the entertainment industry, they also jeopardize the safety of consumers," said MPAA Chairman and CEO Dan Glickman. “I am heartened by today’s ruling and am hopeful that the Court will issue a permanent ban on such false advertisements. There are plenty of legal ways to download movies and we will not stand by and let consumers be duped into paying for illegal services.”
If there were download services that offered more than a few thousand movies or a select number of tv shows for a reasonable price, I don't think that these sites would exist.
The MPAA is suing people for illegally downloading movies, so there is a risk to using these services (they have been able to track downloads for a long time).
I haven't tried any of these services, but they appear to teach you how to use BitTorrent, a free program that has many legal uses (but can also be used to quickly download music or movies).
Is it illegal to download tv shows? I feel that when a company broadcasts for free something nationwide they are giving up certain rights.
Posted by: Stephan | November 11, 2005 at 01:13 PM
I think that they must view this as an illegal redistribution, and not
"fair use".
One other factor driving this: you guessed it --> Money!
The studios are making a ton off TV shows on DVD. This is a
growing sector.
This seems to be the line-in-the-sand. If you come between
the studios and their money, then you had better watch out!
(and I say "you" where I mean "I". A typical psych game. Take care)
Posted by: PlungeBob | November 11, 2005 at 01:21 PM
I think they (content owners) consider any downloading to be illegal by virtue of their content being redistributed. The downloading is an afterthought. It's the act of redistribution without permission they seek penalties for.
Posted by: Jason | November 11, 2005 at 01:25 PM
Though the way BT works, you only upload small slices of the file to each person. So is it illegal to distribute 2 minutes of a television show?
Posted by: Zach | November 11, 2005 at 02:29 PM
Zach,
If it costs them money, then they will call it illegal, and
work backwards from there.
Sleazy, but there it is.
Posted by: PlungeBob | November 11, 2005 at 04:01 PM
Wow, some people are actually paying to be taught how to use p2p.How stupid can you be?
Posted by: | November 11, 2005 at 04:46 PM
"Wow, some people are actually paying to be taught how to use p2p.How stupid can you be?"
Actually, the MPAA/RIAA are paying to teach people to use p2p. Every DRM system, every copy protection scheme, every propaganda commercial against piracy is teaching more people the benefits of downloading for free.
The more they tighten their grip, the more computer systems slip through their fingers.
Posted by: | November 11, 2005 at 09:27 PM
If more TV shows had legal downloads available, or even rebroadcast their episodes a second time in the week they aired, these sites wouldn't be so popular. There are a lot of shows where you really can't miss one episode -- Lost, Prison Break, 24, etc., and if you miss the initial episode you have no chance to catch it again on TV for weeks, months, or until the show goes into syndication years later.
I would always prefer to watch episodes on TV, but sometimes things happen -- you screw up your VCR/DVR, it screws up on its own, the power goes out, the cable goes out, your local station does something stupid that messes up the transmission (witness the recent Spanish Desperate Housewives ep in LA), your local station preeempts the episode for sports, etc.
Something like the $2 download ABC is offering with some of its shows are perfect for this. It will never be my first choice on how to get an episode, but it's great to know it's there.
If that's not an option, which would the network prefer -- that someone download one episode to catch up, or quit watching the show altogether out of frustration?
I also bet illegal downloading is much more prevalent with network shows that are catch-it-or-miss-it than it is with cable (premium or basic) shows, which give you several chances to watch them shortly after they first air.
The lack of legal alternatives (with the exception of ABC's iPod shows) reminds me of the music industry dragging its feet on making legal downloads available for reasonable prices and terms of use. If they had been ahead of the curve instead of so far behind it, the illegal file-sharing services wouldn't have become so popular. It would be nice if they spent half as much time coming up with legal alternatives as they do filing lawsuits and holding press conferences.
Posted by: Lynn | November 11, 2005 at 09:37 PM
"The more they tighten their grip, the more computer systems slip through their fingers."
Precious! LOL! Too true!
Posted by: PlungeBob | November 12, 2005 at 01:33 AM
Keep in mind that Google ads like those you saw are fed to sites automatically based on the client site's content. Like thousands of other sites, TVGuide just provides the space and lets Google manage what goes there. It's very unlikely TVGuide exercised any editorial control over those specific advertisers, so don't take their presence as any sort of approval. If anyone were in a position to screen those advertisers it would be Google.
Posted by: Joel Risberg | November 13, 2005 at 12:51 AM
"The MPAA is suing people for illegally downloading movies, "
err...WRONG.
The MPAA, and indeed the RIAA have NEVER sued anyone for downloading. they sue for uploading (distributing). It is not possible to sue for downloading
Posted by: | November 14, 2005 at 06:27 AM
This might get a little confusing, as with Torrents, eveyone downloading is uploading.
N'est-ce pas?
Posted by: PlungeBob | November 14, 2005 at 11:36 AM
Bob, with torrents most people downloading are not uploading, and with newsgroups, still a larger source than torrents, 99% are not uploading at all.
You can't get sued for downloading, and most people are not uploading a thing..
Posted by: | November 14, 2005 at 07:39 PM
I thought with torrents you couldnt block uploads. I thought it was the "orgy" of file sharing (giving and sharing...lol)
Posted by: | November 14, 2005 at 10:08 PM
Yeah .... orgy....
;0)
Posted by: PlungeBob | November 15, 2005 at 01:56 AM
Did they make this big a deal when people were using a VCR?
Posted by: briggette12 | January 26, 2006 at 10:20 PM
Any thoughts on the reverse hyperextension and it's carryover into the deadlift?I will say this, close grip benching had a detrimental effect on my ring dips, which leads me to believe that both movements would be beneficial for the Press.
Posted by: jordan 7 | October 20, 2010 at 02:41 AM