Legality of downloading free torrents of cable TV shows like "daily show" or"Colbert"

[Dr. Zaus]

Illegal probably yes, immoral no if you pay for the content in some way like cable or hulu plus (you're just time shifting).

Except that hulu has adds, which is how you pay for their shows; DVR views count toward ratings, something you're killing by downloading.

 

[silverpig]

You are obviously not doing it right.

A good private torrent tracker has stuff that you can't get on giganews. Add to that the fact that giganews retention is 1400 days, and some private trackers are almost twice that. I just checked one that I am on that has 2355 days as it's oldest torrent and that has 26 seeders. Oh and it isn't a crappy scene release either. And it is free.

A lot of people on there have hosted seed boxes that have dedicated 100/100 connections so any torrent will max out most people's lines.

I don't download much, but it is nice to have when I miss a show.

agreed. i've been using newsgroups for ages now (moved from torrents) and it's worth the money. if you want to get something that's not been "new" for a while on torrents you tend to get 1 seed and a handful (if any) leeches. and the seed tends to cut out once you're at about 95% done!!!! with NGs you get max speeds start to finish.

You aren't using a good tracker then.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Illegal probably yes, immoral no if you pay for the content in some way like cable or hulu plus (you're just time shifting).

Thats not what was asked.....

 

[nextJin]

A good private torrent tracker has stuff that you can't get on giganews. Add to that the fact that giganews retention is 1400 days, and some private trackers are almost twice that. I just checked one that I am on that has 2355 days as it's oldest torrent and that has 26 seeders. Oh and it isn't a crappy scene release either. And it is free.

A lot of people on there have hosted seed boxes that have dedicated 100/100 connections so any torrent will max out most people's lines.

I don't download much, but it is nice to have when I miss a show.



You aren't using a good tracker then.

Where do you keep getting this scene release nonsense from? By saying that it makes you look ignorant of what usenet can do.....

 

[nageov3t]

personally,

paid usenet > free torrents > free usenet

er... downloading television shows is wrong and illegal and you shouldn't do it.

 

[Zebo]

Illegal. Their content, they get elect how to distribute and say 'not this way'.

 

[silverpig]

Where do you keep getting this scene release nonsense from? By saying that it makes you look ignorant of what usenet can do.....

The best stuff does not make it to the newsgroups, and the private community compares what is publicly available to the internal encodes.

 

[piasabird]

I would argue that is legal for a consumer to make a copy for his personal use. Otherwise a VCR would be illegal to own. Of course once you make a copy and share it, you are breaking the law.

Wal-mart recently stated if you purchase a DVD or BLUE-Ray that for a fee they will make you a digital copy. They use some service like vudu or something like that. I think that if you have basically a personal use license, then when you buy a DVD or Blue-ray they should give you a license certificate as proof or record your name in a database which grants you digital download rights.

I noted an article on www.missingremote.com about premium channels requiring better DHCP control of their premium channels over the network, whatever that means. This might interfere with some older TV encoder cards.

 

[HumblePie]

What the fuck is everyone here saying?

Look, if an intellectual property has been paid for to be broadcast by public dissemination, then it can be legally disseminated via any legal channel.

So what that means in less lawyer speak?

Basically if a TV show was paid for public broadcasting, such as a TV show that has commercials, then downloading, saving, distributing, uploading those shows are legal so long as the license is also passed along, in most cases that means the commercials must go with the show. But, usually the license isn't listed for a show that the commercials must go, so in that case it doesn't matter.

Shows that air on HBO though aren't usually paid for by commercials for public broadcast. Those aren't legally allowed to be distributed in that case unless the show states that they are.





This all goes back to VHS and betamax days and law rulings. Basically shows tried to prosecute people, and the makers of the VHS/betamax, for recording their shows over the air and distributing them later. It doesn't matter if the media used to distribute it is a cassette tape or an AVI file.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

Fair Use laws FTW.

What that meant was back in the day, if I wanted to record a show on my VHS from a cable channel I could. I could make a dozen copies and even give them out to everyone in my circle of friends that missed watching that show. What I CAN NOT DO though is charge people for viewing that show I made a copy of. That is a big no no.

 

[Nebbers]

I would argue that is legal for a consumer to make a copy for his personal use. Otherwise a VCR would be illegal to own. Of course once you make a copy and share it, you are breaking the law.

Wal-mart recently stated if you purchase a DVD or BLUE-Ray that for a fee they will make you a digital copy. They use some service like vudu or something like that. I think that if you have basically a personal use license, then when you buy a DVD or Blue-ray they should give you a license certificate as proof or record your name in a database which grants you digital download rights.

I noted an article on www.missingremote.com about premium channels requiring better DHCP control of their premium channels over the network, whatever that means. This might interfere with some older TV encoder cards.

Wrong about the VCR thought. It's the same thing as stuff like Usenet... Glass pipes in headshops... etc. Everyone knows what they are really being used for, but they "could" be used for legal things, so they are sellable. Even if 99% of the people buying something use it for an illegal purpose, if there's ANY legitimate use for a product they can fall back on that.

That said... and the rest of this is just a general reply...

Piracy is not theft. Period. If you think it is, you lack a basic understanding of the meaning of the word. It's a crime, absolutely, but you are not "stealing" anything because that would require something that was there before to no longer be there after you "took" it.

If the original is unaffected, it is not theft. Making a copy of something isn't theft.

Now, one could argue that the distribution of this copy that you made could cause the loss of X amount of sales, but there has been little evidence presented that this is actually true.

I understand completely why music/movie corporations are vehemently anti-piracy.

I do not understand at all, though, why MUSICIANS themselves are sometimes vocally anti-filesharing, because file sharing benefits them FAR more than it harms their profits. Musicians on major labels don't make anywhere near the majority of their profits from record sales to begin with, they make money on merchandise and touring.

That, and many people that I know who have "borrowed" at some point... generally tend to make a point of directly supporting artists that are currently active by buying digital downloads directly from their websites - cutting out the middlemen like iTunes and giving 100% of the profits to the band (well, almost. some production costs are involved with anything)