Is this piracy or not?

[Rainman05]

I don't know exactly where to put this so I will put this here.

If you have a TV and a cable subscription. You also pay premiere cable subscriptions for HBO, HBO Comedy, AXNs and all the other channels. Lets say you have all the channels possible. So you have access to basically all the content that is on TV, all the time, no problems.

So if you download a movie or a series online, from a torrent site, and watch it, is it piracy? Considering of course, that said series is also running on TV.
Let's say NCIS. I like NCIS. It's running on AXN, so basically, I'm paying for NCIS. If I download the NCIS series, is that piracy?

Or game of thrones. You pay for HBO, you basically have access to GOT. But you decide you want to download it so that you can binge watch all seasons. Is it piracy? technically, you are downloading a product that you paid for, by paying for HBO, but that isn't available in the format you want it to be now.

Or prometheus. HBO started running prometheus a week ago. Technically, the moment is started running, you paid for it by paying for your cable subscription. If you were to download it online from a torrent site, and watch it at your pleasure, is that piracy?

Or even, should it be considered piracy? I'm not just talking strictly legal aspects here. It's more a matter of: is it/should it be piracy?

 

[Superfly]

It shouldn't, but it might be considered piracy because HBO won't always be showing Prometheus, and you have now in your possession a digital copy that you can watch any time you want. Personally, I don't think it's theft, but I might be the wrong person to answer because I advocate piracy, just because of the sheer ridiculousness of what is being charged for a CD that costs .19 cents to make. Same with Kindle. Of course, I understand that there is a cost involved in hosting all of the e-books, but I get pissed when I pay the same (or MORE) for an e-book than a printed copy, that has to be printed, bound, shipped. I KNOW it costs less to host an e-book than it does to print, bind and ship a book. :shrug:

 

[Fiddytree]

I don't know exactly where to put this so I will put this here.

If you have a TV and a cable subscription. You also pay premiere cable subscriptions for HBO, HBO Comedy, AXNs and all the other channels. Lets say you have all the channels possible. So you have access to basically all the content that is on TV, all the time, no problems.

So if you download a movie or a series online, from a torrent site, and watch it, is it piracy? Considering of course, that said series is also running on TV.

You aren't using a mechanism through which the content owners authorize. Yes.

Let's say NCIS. I like NCIS. It's running on AXN, so basically, I'm paying for NCIS. If I download the NCIS series, is that piracy?

Depends on where you are downloading from. Accepted by the content owners? No. If you use your DVR, you're fine.

Or game of thrones. You pay for HBO, you basically have access to GOT. But you decide you want to download it so that you can binge watch all seasons. Is it piracy? technically, you are downloading a product that you paid for, by paying for HBO, but that isn't available in the format you want it to be now.

You have to binge through HBO Go. Otherwise, yes, piracy. You're paying for the HBO Service through the television and now the internet via HBO Go. You're not paying for Game of Thrones.

Or prometheus. HBO started running prometheus a week ago. Technically, the moment is started running, you paid for it by paying for your cable subscription. If you were to download it online from a torrent site, and watch it at your pleasure, is that piracy?

Or even, should it be considered piracy? I'm not just talking strictly legal aspects here. It's more a matter of: is it/should it be piracy?

HBO Go, iTunes. Otherwise, yes, it is piracy. You're paying for HBO, not Prometheus.

No, on to the heart of your question. The providers of the content ought to be flexible in the mediums through which is becomes acceptable to use their products. That being said, they should maintain that control.

 

[Fisher]

Yes it is piracy if you download programs from cable networks like HBO, but with broadcast networks it is a little more of a question mark right now

Aereo case headed to U.S. Supreme Court after broadcasters lose another appeal | Company News content from Broadcast Engineering

 

[Van Basten]

Um, yes, torrenting definitely is piracy.

 

[Spriggs05]

I don't know exactly where to put this so I will put this here.

If you have a TV and a cable subscription. You also pay premiere cable subscriptions for HBO, HBO Comedy, AXNs and all the other channels. Lets say you have all the channels possible. So you have access to basically all the content that is on TV, all the time, no problems.

So if you download a movie or a series online, from a torrent site, and watch it, is it piracy? Considering of course, that said series is also running on TV.
Let's say NCIS. I like NCIS. It's running on AXN, so basically, I'm paying for NCIS. If I download the NCIS series, is that piracy?

Or game of thrones. You pay for HBO, you basically have access to GOT. But you decide you want to download it so that you can binge watch all seasons. Is it piracy? technically, you are downloading a product that you paid for, by paying for HBO, but that isn't available in the format you want it to be now.

Or prometheus. HBO started running prometheus a week ago. Technically, the moment is started running, you paid for it by paying for your cable subscription. If you were to download it online from a torrent site, and watch it at your pleasure, is that piracy?

Or even, should it be considered piracy? I'm not just talking strictly legal aspects here. It's more a matter of: is it/should it be piracy?

It is considered piracy, however it shouldn't be.
A Person who rips the series/film straight from a dvd when it is on general release owns that Disk and the content on it, therefore they should be able to do what they like with it. However someone who rips it straight from a film screen or TV. That is piracy since they do not own the content on that TV/Film screen since it is being broadcast by a company who owns the content. That is piracy. Uploading a file that you own to a site so others can have it for free is generosity!

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I don't know exactly where to put this so I will put this here.

If you have a TV and a cable subscription. You also pay premiere cable subscriptions for HBO, HBO Comedy, AXNs and all the other channels. Lets say you have all the channels possible. So you have access to basically all the content that is on TV, all the time, no problems.

So if you download a movie or a series online, from a torrent site, and watch it, is it piracy? Considering of course, that said series is also running on TV.
Let's say NCIS. I like NCIS. It's running on AXN, so basically, I'm paying for NCIS. If I download the NCIS series, is that piracy?

Or game of thrones. You pay for HBO, you basically have access to GOT. But you decide you want to download it so that you can binge watch all seasons. Is it piracy? technically, you are downloading a product that you paid for, by paying for HBO, but that isn't available in the format you want it to be now.

Or prometheus. HBO started running prometheus a week ago. Technically, the moment is started running, you paid for it by paying for your cable subscription. If you were to download it online from a torrent site, and watch it at your pleasure, is that piracy?

Or even, should it be considered piracy? I'm not just talking strictly legal aspects here. It's more a matter of: is it/should it be piracy?

It's definitively piracy, but it really shouldn't be. If I own a DVD, I'll still usually just stream the movie from a pirate site because it's easier than tracking down the dvd, inserting it, and dealing with menus.

I would suggest you stay away from torrents for movies and tv shows because when you download that you're connecting to thousands of other users, and some of those users are set up by the movie industry to track your IP. In a lot of Europe and sometimes in the states, these movie companies can then take your IP to a judge and get a court order to force your ISP to rat you out, and then they'll send you a hefty fine. I know because it happened to me in Germany.

The best thing to do is stream directly from a video upload site. I won't list any here, but you can find many, many sites that congregate streaming links for the shows and movies you want. You then connect directly to their server, so there's no way for the movie industry to get between you and them.

If the movie and tv people would just stop being dicks and change their business model to allow me to stream every movie and every tv show on demand like I can now illegally, I would pay $50+/month for the service, and they would make a killing. Hell, Netflix is making billions and they have a very limited amount of programming.

 

[Redress]

I don't know exactly where to put this so I will put this here.

If you have a TV and a cable subscription. You also pay premiere cable subscriptions for HBO, HBO Comedy, AXNs and all the other channels. Lets say you have all the channels possible. So you have access to basically all the content that is on TV, all the time, no problems.

So if you download a movie or a series online, from a torrent site, and watch it, is it piracy? Considering of course, that said series is also running on TV.
Let's say NCIS. I like NCIS. It's running on AXN, so basically, I'm paying for NCIS. If I download the NCIS series, is that piracy?

Or game of thrones. You pay for HBO, you basically have access to GOT. But you decide you want to download it so that you can binge watch all seasons. Is it piracy? technically, you are downloading a product that you paid for, by paying for HBO, but that isn't available in the format you want it to be now.

Or prometheus. HBO started running prometheus a week ago. Technically, the moment is started running, you paid for it by paying for your cable subscription. If you were to download it online from a torrent site, and watch it at your pleasure, is that piracy?

Or even, should it be considered piracy? I'm not just talking strictly legal aspects here. It's more a matter of: is it/should it be piracy?

It is very clear cut piracy. When you pay for a channel, you pay to watch it as they allow, with commercials and timeslots and whatever. If you want to own the shows, you have to buy them. Looking at your two examples(excepting Prometheus since it is new):

Amazon.com: NCIS: The Complete Tenth Season: Ncis: Movies & TV
Amazon.com: Game of Thrones: The Complete Third Season Limited Edition (Blu-ray/DVD Combo + Digital Copy): Peter Dinklage, Lena Headey, Maisie Williams, Emilia Clarke, Michelle Fairley, Iain Glen, Kit Harington, Sophie Turner, Alfie Allen, Jack Glees

As you can see, the makers are selling ownership of the shows, which is what you are bypassing when you download. You do not buy the show when you subscribe to a channel.

Now this is all going to change to an extent in the fairly near future. The only type of programming which is showing a long term viability with the current advertiser revenue scheme are sporting events and other live broadcasts. If it is not live, DVRs and PPV/OnDemand type content delivery are killing the rate of commercial watching and thus what networks can charge for advertising. Revenue is going to have to come more from subscriptions, and probably from streaming services more than cable, as we are sorta seeing more and more with networks offering streaming services. How this will all play out is unknown right now.

 

[Buck Ewer]

In my honest opinion; If you sell what you downloaded you are a pirate. If it is just for your own private viewing ... probably not.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

It shouldn't, but it might be considered piracy because HBO won't always be showing Prometheus, and you have now in your possession a digital copy that you can watch any time you want. Personally, I don't think it's theft, but I might be the wrong person to answer because I advocate piracy, just because of the sheer ridiculousness of what is being charged for a CD that costs .19 cents to make. Same with Kindle. Of course, I understand that there is a cost involved in hosting all of the e-books, but I get pissed when I pay the same (or MORE) for an e-book than a printed copy, that has to be printed, bound, shipped. I KNOW it costs less to host an e-book than it does to print, bind and ship a book. :shrug:

I share your sentiments when it comes to Kindle. Technically ...you don't buy the digital books ...you're really renting them.
As for the cost ...it's maddening that a $30 bound book is costing the same digitally.

 

[Superfly]

I mean, how is it different than what we did 20 years ago, by recording our favorite shows on a VHS tape? It's no different. I agree with what Buck said. If you sell it, you should have the book thrown at you, but if you are doing it for your own viewing pleasure, it shouldn't be piracy.

 

[Helix]

not piracy. you're paying for the programs, but the provider enjoys near monopoly status, and has no real incentive (yet) to let you watch the programs in the way that you wish. this will change as more and more of it becomes a la carte over the internet.

is it legally considered piracy? yes. only because the industry has better lobbyists, though. in reality, if you purchase something you should have the right to view it any way you damned well please. if the distribution was more user friendly, there would be little demand for bit torrent in the first place.

 

[Fiddytree]

I mean, how is it different than what we did 20 years ago, by recording our favorite shows on a VHS tape? It's no different. I agree with what Buck said. If you sell it, you should have the book thrown at you, but if you are doing it for your own viewing pleasure, it shouldn't be piracy.

The owners of the content want to be paid for the material they put out. If there is no mechanism for them to make money, they will naturally oppose it. Paying for HBO only grants you the right to watch content through the mechanisms they have set up, benefiting the content creators and the channel. However, if either party does not make cash from another mechanism, say, through Bittorrent, then guess who will be against it? The fact that they are frequently knuckledraggers does not erase the fact that what is primarily at stake is money and control of money flow.

 

[Superfly]

The owners of the content want to be paid for the material they put out. If there is no mechanism for them to make money, they will naturally oppose it. Paying for HBO only grants you the right to watch content through the mechanisms they have set up, benefiting the content creators and the channel. However, if either party does not make cash from another mechanism, say, through Bittorrent, then guess who will be against it? The fact that they are frequently knuckledraggers does not erase the fact that what is primarily at stake is money and control of money flow.

Sure. I agree to that. I just wonder what the difference is between ripping a DVD for personal use, or videotaping a movie for personal use. I see no difference at all. Of course, ripping a DVD opens up the door to digitally transferring the disk to others, and that - of course I see an issue with it. But let me ask you this. If I rent a movie from Redbox, and I bring it home and rip it and burn it - how is that any different than if I just rented it to watch it once, with no intention of ever buying it? It's the same. They still get their $1.20.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I don't know exactly where to put this so I will put this here.

If you have a TV and a cable subscription. You also pay premiere cable subscriptions for HBO, HBO Comedy, AXNs and all the other channels. Lets say you have all the channels possible. So you have access to basically all the content that is on TV, all the time, no problems.

So if you download a movie or a series online, from a torrent site, and watch it, is it piracy? Considering of course, that said series is also running on TV.
Let's say NCIS. I like NCIS. It's running on AXN, so basically, I'm paying for NCIS. If I download the NCIS series, is that piracy?

Or game of thrones. You pay for HBO, you basically have access to GOT. But you decide you want to download it so that you can binge watch all seasons. Is it piracy? technically, you are downloading a product that you paid for, by paying for HBO, but that isn't available in the format you want it to be now.

Or prometheus. HBO started running prometheus a week ago. Technically, the moment is started running, you paid for it by paying for your cable subscription. If you were to download it online from a torrent site, and watch it at your pleasure, is that piracy?

Or even, should it be considered piracy? I'm not just talking strictly legal aspects here. It's more a matter of: is it/should it be piracy?

Technically downloading a show as a torrent to watch it latter isnt any different than setting a tivo to download a show to watch latter. though the source is different and the ability to transfer the file is easier usually when downloading from torrent. But a tivo is nothing more than software and a hard drive. So those files can be transferred as well.

If HBO or any other station or record label actually thought things through they would embrace peer to peer trading they would realize that it exists because they suck.

But then these are the same people that were against vcr's and audio tape recorders. I dont believe that they will ever understand their business base.

 

[Fiddytree]

Sure. I agree to that. I just wonder what the difference is between ripping a DVD for personal use, or videotaping a movie for personal use. I see no difference at all. Of course, ripping a DVD opens up the door to digitally transferring the disk to others, and that - of course I see an issue with it. But let me ask you this. If I rent a movie from Redbox, and I bring it home and rip it and burn it - how is that any different than if I just rented it to watch it once, with no intention of ever buying it? It's the same. They still get their $1.20.

Well, in some way that particular question, goes back to a problem that plagued the VCR. The VCR was opposed by the same interests as they viewed the VCR as detrimental toward their business model, that it was a form of theft, and so forth. So opposition toward DVD decryption, Blu-ray decryption, or whatever have you, does go back to a long-standing problem within the industry to seek more control than the viewers think is necessary or good. I suspect this is partially why they had an interest in funding Digital Copy and Ultraviolet. In some ways it grants that people want increased options for viewing content, but the studios want to control how that process works. Of course, my view of both of those implementations is that they suck and I can do a better job of ripping myself, and don't like the notion that they want to control my ability for personal use duplication rights for the 600+ films I own. Now, they always had considered duplication of rented or borrowed tapes to be an illegal activity-so they are being consistent with rental discs being copied from rental stores as illegal. They, along with the rental store, consider your license is to view per the duration of your rental, but no more-and certainly not with rights of duplication. They would say, no your 1.50-3.50 rental doesn't give you license to watch it as often as you want without further fees, pay up. I do not know the financial perspective of the studios/content creators and the rental outlets and that is a good question, though I suspect there is a rationale to that as well.

 

[Fiddytree]

Technically downloading a show as a torrent to watch it latter isnt any different than setting a tivo to download a show to watch latter. though the source is different and the ability to transfer the file is easier usually when downloading from torrent. But a tivo is nothing more than software and a hard drive. So those files can be transferred as well.

The technology of it is different, the rational of distribution is more analogous to the VCR than a peer service, and the revenue stream is not the same.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The technology of it is different, the rational of distribution is more analogous to the VCR than a peer service, and the revenue stream is not the same.

Yes tivo's are digital and vcr's are analog. Which makes no difference.
Peer to peer sharing is nothing different than borrowing a tape and recording it. There isnt any revenue in either examples. At least with the normal person there isnt any what one would think of as piracy (being copying work that isnt yours and making a profit from it)

A downloaded file of a some movie is worthless. You dont find anyone selling them. But you do find plenty of people selling used dvd's. GO look at a pawnshop or at a yard sell a copied version of a movie on a dvdr is in the free section.

Why would anyone steal a movie when you could rent the same movie for a couple bucks? In fact why would you but a movie when you could rent it? This just goes to show that some people are behind the times. I mean with all this so called piracy you would think that the cost would be past on down to the customers. But if you have been watching dvd and blueray prices they have actually come down not up. This is because the money insi in the box office or if its on tv from advertising. The media part isnt as big as it once was.

Most tv stations stream yesterdays show on their website. Again watching the show is no different when it comes from a different source. Im not claiming that its legal to download a tv show that aired last night. But it is ridiculous that it is illegal to do so when you can stream it from their website. They should also have a link to a torrent for those of us that dont have sup[er great broadband. In doing so the rippers would have less of a purpose. WHy rip off a download when you can download from a legitimate source?

 

[Fiddytree]

Peer to peer sharing is nothing different than borrowing a tape and recording it. There isnt any revenue in either examples. At least with the normal person there isnt any what one would think of as piracy (being copying work that isnt yours and making a profit from it)

So if it is different, why equate the two. Furthermore, the content creators don't get revenue from your act of borrowing and recording, but they do get revenue through your act of recording a television program. One is illegal the other is not. What normal people understand is irrelevant.

A downloaded file of a some movie is worthless. You dont find anyone selling them. But you do find plenty of people selling used dvd's. GO look at a pawnshop or at a yard sell a copied version of a movie on a dvdr is in the free section.

But your copy of the download doesn't magically disappear once you distribute it to someone else. One is a legitimate trade, in which one person ceases to have a copy, and the new owner gets it. Yes, the industry went after that too, and they were wrong to do so.

Why would anyone steal a movie when you could rent the same movie for a couple bucks? In fact why would you but a movie when you could rent it? This just goes to show that some people are behind the times. I mean with all this so called piracy you would think that the cost would be past on down to the customers. But if you have been watching dvd and blueray prices they have actually come down not up. This is because the money insi in the box office or if its on tv from advertising. The media part isnt as big as it once was.

Yeah, I buy my movies. I like the fact that they don't scratch often, I would gladly pay up to 35 bucks for a well-mastered film so I could rewatch it whenever I wish without fear of it not existing on someone's roster, and no undue compression artifacts. Blu-ray prices came down when it became more present in the marketplace. I watch blu-ray prices frequently, of course.

Most tv stations stream yesterdays show on their website. Again watching the show is no different when it comes from a different source. Im not claiming that its legal to download a tv show that aired last night. But it is ridiculous that it is illegal to do so when you can stream it from their website. They should also have a link to a torrent for those of us that dont have sup[er great broadband. In doing so the rippers would have less of a purpose. WHy rip off a download when you can download from a legitimate source?

They get money from that distribution.

 

[Fiddytree]

Yes tivo's are digital and vcr's are analog. Which makes no difference.
Peer to peer sharing is nothing different than borrowing a tape and recording it. There isnt any revenue in either examples. At least with the normal person there isnt any what one would think of as piracy (being copying work that isnt yours and making a profit from it)

On second thought, I see what happened. Rather than specifically address the notion that Bittorrent and Tivo share an incredibly array of differences, you ignored that and went after what I said about the actual similarities of the Tivo and the VCR, but got confused about what I meant.

No, I did not point out that one is digital and the other is analog. I said the Tivo mas more analogous to the VCR than it was to Bittorrent.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

So if it is different, why equate the two. Furthermore, the content creators don't get revenue from your act of borrowing and recording, but they do get revenue through your act of recording a television program. One is illegal the other is not. What normal people understand is irrelevant.

Did not say that the two were identical, just said that the concepts were alike.

The content creators do not get revenue from me when I watch a show on the stations website either.

One is illegal because the laws are stupid that way. Of course that doesnt make breaking the law ok and I never said it was ok to break any law.

And when it comes to normal understandings the law is on my side in the majority of court cases.

But your copy of the download doesn't magically disappear once you distribute it to someone else. One is a legitimate trade, in which one person ceases to have a copy, and the new owner gets it. Yes, the industry went after that too, and they were wrong to do so.

WHo said that i was distributing anything to anyone else?

When a person uses their DVR they are downloading a copyrighted file and not paying for it. That file does exactly the same thing that a torrent file does after you download it. It just sites there on a hard drive until the person that downloaded it no longer needs it there.

No one pays for torrents, no money is exchanged. Neither is any money exchanged when someone uses their dvr to save a show to watch latter.

Yeah, I buy my movies. I like the fact that they don't scratch often, I would gladly pay up to 35 bucks for a well-mastered film so I could rewatch it whenever I wish without fear of it not existing on someone's roster, and no undue compression artifacts. Blu-ray prices came down when it became more present in the marketplace. I watch blu-ray prices frequently, of course.

Files do not scratch, nor do files need to be highly compressed. Hell not all blurays have good quality.

Speaking of bluray prices, even if they came down because more people have been brought on board, that still doesnt explain the claimed huge losses do to pirating and the prices dropping as much as they have.

If you havent noticed the trend is going towards files not discs. It turns out the the hvd vs bluray battle was a big waste of time. People dont care so much about owning a disc anymore. Things like that take up too much space.

They get money from that distribution.

But they do not get it from me, and they could get advertisement money from torrents if they actually did that. but they dont so people have to break the law if they live in a area with bad broadband speeds. They are simply ignoring a huge portion of their market because they want people like you to believe that down loading a torrent is immoral. When in reality as I said before the concept is like recording a song of the radio or just exactly like setting the vcr to record a tv show while you are at work.

 

[Fiddytree]

Did not say that the two were identical, just said that the concepts were alike.

They aren't similar. The Tivo is a set top box that performs much like a VCR in that it records content provided over the air. Bittorrent is a distribution method. It would be like me saying that the Roku is the same thing as Netflix just because it has something to do with content. Lord knows why you think they are similar. Furthermore, the Tivo runs on a model where it is complementary to the industry's business model, and doesn't actually usurp it.

The content creators do not get revenue from me when I watch a show on the stations website either.

Yeah, they do.

One is illegal because the laws are stupid that way. Of course that doesnt make breaking the law ok and I never said it was ok to break any law.

Having a method of distribution not authorized by the content creators or providers ought to be illegal. Just because a bunch of digital anarchists want otherwise doesn't make it right.

And when it comes to normal understandings the law is on my side in the majority of court cases.

Since when?

WHo said that i was distributing anything to anyone else?

As soon as you use Bittorent you are distributing to someone else. You can't operate it without sharing and aide the downloading of bits with peers. This isn't like Napster where you could shut it off.

When a person uses their DVR they are downloading a copyrighted file and not paying for it. That file does exactly the same thing that a torrent file does after you download it. It just sites there on a hard drive until the person that downloaded it no longer needs it there.

When a person uses a DVR to record a program, they are recording a program that was paid through advertising and other deals between content provider and content creator. When you are using Bittorrent, unless it is part of that person's/group's distribution plan, you are not contributing to their business model. You are bypassing it entirely.

Files do not scratch, nor do files need to be highly compressed. Hell not all blurays have good quality.

No, but files can and have become corrupted. No, files do not need to be compressed, but it makes more sense to do so unless you have the infrastructure to pass the data quickly on the distribution side, and have the customer receive it quickly. As good quality HD material comes at significant data, and many have internet connections that limit a quick transmission of 20-50 GB of data, it becomes more difficult to download without added compression artifacts. No, not all blu-rays have been treated with respect. That's a given. Adding to that misery by encouraging more compression artifacts benefits only convenience. On a fantastic transfer, I still want all the bits, and I don't want to spend a significant amount of time waiting-hoping that I can get the file(s) transmitted quickly enough. Otherwise I would run to the local video store (or God help me, a Red Box) and hope that they have the disc (without damage). Comparing the file to the disc is a matter of comparing convenience (some of the time) vs. quality. Now that 4k is rolling out, they are attempting to do the file route, but internet speeds are still prohibitive on this.

Given all of this, it makes more sense for me to purchase the disc. Better quality, easier to deal with, more dependable.

Speaking of bluray prices, even if they came down because more people have been brought on board, that still doesnt explain the claimed huge losses do to pirating and the prices dropping as much as they have.

Huh?

If you havent noticed the trend is going towards files not discs. It turns out the the hvd vs bluray battle was a big waste of time. People dont care so much about owning a disc anymore. Things like that take up too much space.

The trend is limited. Actually, I think the HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray battle was well worth it. Blu-ray adopted some of the former's structure, so as to allow for a greater menu experience, or for those who want it, extra features. Simply put, if you want better quality, selection, reliability, and less legal hassles: stick to the disc.

But they do not get it from me, and they could get advertisement money from torrents if they actually did that. but they dont so people have to break the law if they live in a area with bad broadband speeds. They are simply ignoring a huge portion of their market because they want people like you to believe that down loading a torrent is immoral. When in reality as I said before the concept is like recording a song of the radio or just exactly like setting the vcr to record a tv show while you are at work.

If studios found a model to work for Bittorrent, and supported it, then there would be no problem. I might have a qualm with it, because the model for bittorrent is that which is popular goes smooth, while that which is not is hardly worth the attempt. Studios and content providers have more work to do in creating accessibility, flexibility, and new creative ventures, but that doesn't mean that somehow a device is the same thing as a distribution method (which bittorrent is).

 

[Superfly]

I have always thought I'd like to see a program like "pay a monthly fee and have access to all movies. Period." If it's been released on DVD, it goes in the database. Pay like $50 a month or so, but any movie that you've ever seen or that you would ever want to see, would be set up in this massive database, and you have access to it. As long as you pay your $50 a month, you have access to the movies. It wouldn't completely do away with piracy because you'll always have someone who balks at paying $50 a month, but I would think it might curb it some.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

They aren't similar. The Tivo is a set top box that performs much like a VCR in that it records content provided over the air. Bittorrent is a distribution method. It would be like me saying that the Roku is the same thing as Netflix just because it has something to do with content. Lord knows why you think they are similar. Furthermore, the Tivo runs on a model where it is complementary to the industry's business model, and doesn't actually usurp it.

You are nit picking words here. And then following that up with bs about business models. Those same people keep trying to write business models that make it illegal to sell used dvd's. I find no credibility in their business model at all. Again though that doesnt mean go break the laws as they stand. And I never said that anyone should. But I dont have to support the current bs and how it is run.

Yeah, they do.

That is debatable since I use adblock.

Having a method of distribution not authorized by the content creators or providers ought to be illegal. Just because a bunch of digital anarchists want otherwise doesn't make it right.

Thats exactly what was said about the audio cassette and the vcr tape. Digital anarchists and hackers are a completely different subject. Consumers on the other hand do have rights. Which is why they cannot arrest us for selling old vcr tapes and dvd's.

Since when?

So the courts operate in world of abnormalities? Seriously dude normal is legal jargon go learn about it sometime. I mean courts would be chaos if there was nothing normalized.

As soon as you use Bittorent you are distributing to someone else. You can't operate it without sharing and aide the downloading of bits with peers. This isn't like Napster where you could shut it off.

Lol I bet you have never actually used a torrent manger before? Unfortunately most people dont share they are only leeches. meaning that you can JUST download and NOT upload. You should learn more about what you are talking about.

ANd no not everyone that uses a torrent manager is doing something illegal. Many legit businesses use the torrent system to distribute their software. Of course there are many illegal uses but then any freedom can be abused.

When a person uses a DVR to record a program, they are recording a program that was paid through advertising and other deals between content provider and content creator. When you are using Bittorrent, unless it is part of that person's/group's distribution plan, you are not contributing to their business model. You are bypassing it entirely.

So what? It is not my fault that their business model ignores a huge segment of their market base. I would be willing to watch a few commercials in order to download a tv show that I want to watch. But they dont offer that option. Im not going to lose sleep over their bad business model.

No, but files can and have become corrupted. No, files do not need to be compressed, but it makes more sense to do so unless you have the infrastructure to pass the data quickly on the distribution side, and have the customer receive it quickly. As good quality HD material comes at significant data, and many have internet connections that limit a quick transmission of 20-50 GB of data, it becomes more difficult to download without added compression artifacts. No, not all blu-rays have been treated with respect. That's a given. Adding to that misery by encouraging more compression artifacts benefits only convenience. On a fantastic transfer, I still want all the bits, and I don't want to spend a significant amount of time waiting-hoping that I can get the file(s) transmitted quickly enough. Otherwise I would run to the local video store (or God help me, a Red Box) and hope that they have the disc (without damage). Comparing the file to the disc is a matter of comparing convenience (some of the time) vs. quality. Now that 4k is rolling out, they are attempting to do the file route, but internet speeds are still prohibitive on this.

Given all of this, it makes more sense for me to purchase the disc. Better quality, easier to deal with, more dependable.

true most files you find as a torrent are compressed. this means that you are not downloading the full product in most torrent downloads of movies and tv shows. That was one of the arguments about vcr's.

But it is your choice if you are willing to pay for a high quality copy of a movie or whatever. No one is stopping you.

Huh?

if piracy was truly a big issue then the prices would be going up not down.

The trend is limited. Actually, I think the HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray battle was well worth it. Blu-ray adopted some of the former's structure, so as to allow for a greater menu experience, or for those who want it, extra features. Simply put, if you want better quality, selection, reliability, and less legal hassles: stick to the disc.

Yea and the Beta tape was better. My point is though that the disc is dying.

If studios found a model to work for Bittorrent, and supported it, then there would be no problem. I might have a qualm with it, because the model for bittorrent is that which is popular goes smooth, while that which is not is hardly worth the attempt. Studios and content providers have more work to do in creating accessibility, flexibility, and new creative ventures, but that doesn't mean that somehow a device is the same thing as a distribution method (which bittorrent is).

Most people dont us Bittorrent since there are much better torrent managers available. The concept is the same though, sure the technology is different (duh) but downloading a movies with a torrent manager is no different than borrowing a dvd from your buddy, legally speaking. If you dispute that then you need to show the evidence.

I can over the airwaves use my dvr to record the show Castle. I paid for nothing at all. The advertisers did pay though. But my dvr skips commercials. It does it so well that I never see any commercials. Which is the only way that I watch tv. Their business model failed them. ANd i broke no laws. So if I were to download from a torrent Castle my experience would be no different. Yet I am breaking the law. Seems absurd to me, since there really isnt any technological difference between the two methods.

If you like we could over the two methods and I could show you that the only difference is that software. Bits downwload the same way whether it is your dvr or your pc,s hard drive..

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I mean, how is it different than what we did 20 years ago, by recording our favorite shows on a VHS tape? It's no different. I agree with what Buck said. If you sell it, you should have the book thrown at you, but if you are doing it for your own viewing pleasure, it shouldn't be piracy.

The level of distribution. Your VHS copy had physical limitations on who you could distribute it to, and quality was greatly reduced each time you created a new generation of copies.

Also, isn't creating your own digital copy protected under fair use? I think the point you break the law is when you engage in uploading