Why's it illegal to download tv shows?

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
I agree with all the points about the advertising end of things and Nielsen ratings. But if I can't watch a show that is on during the week, then they dont get their Nielsen ratingsanyway, and they dont get to include me in the number of viewers to charge for advertising. Now if they put the episode online as well as aired it on tv, then they could include all the people that would download it as part of their audience. Granted they would need to find a way to keep the files from being edited to cut out commercials etc, but how hard is that? They make a proprietary video format that only their player will play, and it has no fast forward. Seems pretty simple to me. Instead of fighting this, they should be trying to exploit this new media format that has been ushered in by broadband connections.

You're only counted in the Nielsen ratings if you're a Nielsen Family.

 

[djskankho]

I actaully got a warning from paramount with regards to downloading a show via bittorrent. I was informed by the IT department at my school that it is not illegal to download TV shows, it is illegal to share (distribute) them. In my opinion, that's a pretty gray area as far as bittorent is concerned. I guess feel free to grab them from anywhere else though.

 

[Monkey muppet]

Originally posted by: Trygve
This isn't the whole answer by any means, but it's something to keep in mind:

I negotiate distribution deals for program content. The different markets (theatrical, home video, PPV, pay cable, free cable, broadcast) within a territory are often split apart and licensed to different distributors, none of whom have the right to distribute the programming by any methods other than what they have licenses. In many cases, a TV network can't authorize you to distribute their programming over the net because they don't have the right to do it themselves, so they can't assign it to you. In 95% of the contracts I do, nobody gets the internet distribution rights, because that kills the potential of selling in other markets and territories. Even if you signed a contract agreeing to distribute the content over the net only in the US, it's very likely that the existence of that license agreement would kill any foreign distribution deals, or at least significantly reduce the amount of money the copyright holder would receive in such a deal.

There's the further consideration that the licensing of the program elements may be themselves limited to certain distribution channels or that there is an associated fee structure with residuals being paid to the actors and/or the copyright holders of music used in the program. The accounting for such residuals is handled as a matter of course when broadcasting the program; it cannot be handled adequately if it's shared over the net. And, as mentioned above, they may have the rights to broadcast the program with the associated music...but they would not have the rights to use the music if it were distributed by other means and either the soundtrack would have to be replaced (I'm dealing with that right now with a couple of movies) or new contracts would have to be negotiated.

OK, I see you point very clearly - From a commercial point of view.

Now, from my own curiosity; Film & Music are considered art by the majority. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely an artist would like the world to see, appreciate and understand the issues they are raising/addressing.

All I can see from this is a co-operation wanting to make money out of someone else?s work, therefore; Would you consider those people artists (those willing to sell their individual interpritation of a subject to a company).

I believe many would say that this is the only way for an artist to show the world their work - I would say "Thank you very much, you opened my eyes (or you entertained me) to the effect of xx amount of money".

If we were to take the above paragraph into the 'real' world, then use this as an example: You go to watch a film at the cinema, then, according to how much you felt it was worth, you pay after watching it.

I know, I know, the majority of people would pretend to say "it was sh1t, I'm not paying". However if we lived in a society where money, co-operations, business management etc wasn't an issue then a lot more people would contribute towards helping the artist out - Which neatly leads us to Torrents & P2P's. (Some of us can't monetarily contribute, but we can help show the rest of the world the artists' ideals.

Now it's just up to you - what do you believe???

 

[glen]

I am pretty sure it is legal to record a TV show and give the tape to your friend to watch.
Sony carefully argued for this in a famous Supreme Court case.
TV shows are clearly covered by this ruling, even if the recording medium is digital, and the distribution method bit torrent as long as no money is charged.

 

[Trygve]

Originally posted by: Monkey muppet

OK, I see you point very clearly - From a commercial point of view.

Now, from my own curiosity; Film & Music are considered art by the majority. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely an artist would like the world to see, appreciate and understand the issues they are raising/addressing.

All I can see from this is a co-operation wanting to make money out of someone else?s work, therefore; Would you consider those people artists (those willing to sell their individual interpritation of a subject to a company).

I believe many would say that this is the only way for an artist to show the world their work - I would say "Thank you very much, you opened my eyes (or you entertained me) to the effect of xx amount of money".

If we were to take the above paragraph into the 'real' world, then use this as an example: You go to watch a film at the cinema, then, according to how much you felt it was worth, you pay after watching it.

I know, I know, the majority of people would pretend to say "it was sh1t, I'm not paying". However if we lived in a society where money, co-operations, business management etc wasn't an issue then a lot more people would contribute towards helping the artist out - Which neatly leads us to Torrents & P2P's. (Some of us can't monetarily contribute, but we can help show the rest of the world the artists' ideals.

Now it's just up to you - what do you believe???

There's art...and there's the matter of a hundred people being able to feed their families tonight. The world of the major studios is a different plane of existence from the one I travel in, but out here, you have those artists who have their vision of what they want to create, and then they have to convince investors of the commercial viability of their dream. From that point onward, it's a business. People have to be hired, budgets and deadlines need to be met, and, in the end, the investor has to get the money back out of it or there won't be any next movie.

Absolutely, a lot of people just want their art to be seen--and if you financed it all yourself and never need to see anything back from it besides a little appreciation, you can afford to try those alternative means of distribution. But since the conventional distributors are still following the standard business models and practice, you've killed your chances at getting your word out there to all the people who would have seen it in conventional venues like the theaters, video rental places, and on TV.

When it's not all your own bag, there are more people who have something at stake than the original artist. It's all very well and good to say that you'll put a month or two worth of income into a project just to get it out there, but it's a tough artist who's willing to tell a hundred people that they won't get to make their house payments this month for the sake of his art.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: Monkey muppet
OK, I see you point very clearly - From a commercial point of view.

Now, from my own curiosity; Film & Music are considered art by the majority. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely an artist would like the world to see, appreciate and understand the issues they are raising/addressing.

All I can see from this is a co-operation wanting to make money out of someone else?s work, therefore; Would you consider those people artists (those willing to sell their individual interpritation of a subject to a company).

I believe many would say that this is the only way for an artist to show the world their work - I would say "Thank you very much, you opened my eyes (or you entertained me) to the effect of xx amount of money".

If we were to take the above paragraph into the 'real' world, then use this as an example: You go to watch a film at the cinema, then, according to how much you felt it was worth, you pay after watching it.

I know, I know, the majority of people would pretend to say "it was sh1t, I'm not paying". However if we lived in a society where money, co-operations, business management etc wasn't an issue then a lot more people would contribute towards helping the artist out - Which neatly leads us to Torrents & P2P's. (Some of us can't monetarily contribute, but we can help show the rest of the world the artists' ideals.

Now it's just up to you - what do you believe???

You're living in a dream world.

 

[Monkey muppet]

Originally posted by: Trygve

There's art...and there's the matter of a hundred people being able to feed their families tonight. The world of the major studios is a different plane of existence from the one I travel in, but out here, you have those artists who have their vision of what they want to create, and then they have to convince investors of the commercial viability of their dream. From that point onward, it's a business. People have to be hired, budgets and deadlines need to be met, and, in the end, the investor has to get the money back out of it or there won't be any next movie.

Absolutely, a lot of people just want their art to be seen--and if you financed it all yourself and never need to see anything back from it besides a little appreciation, you can afford to try those alternative means of distribution. But since the conventional distributors are still following the standard business models and practice, you've killed your chances at getting your word out there to all the people who would have seen it in conventional venues like the theaters, video rental places, and on TV.

When it's not all your own bag, there are more people who have something at stake than the original artist. It's all very well and good to say that you'll put a month or two worth of income into a project just to get it out there, but it's a tough artist who's willing to tell a hundred people that they won't get to make their house payments this month for the sake of his art.

That is the exact same responce I have recieved from several other people close to me. Yes, it does make sence that the 'artist' needs to have a way to finance their living., and it is a very valid statement.

I was making my point to see how long it would take any member walking within OT to mention your counter arguement...........a lot quicker than expected!!

Here's one question to stimulate your frontal lobes: What is considered an artist???

 

[Monkey muppet]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: Monkey muppet
OK, I see you point very clearly - From a commercial point of view.

Now, from my own curiosity; Film & Music are considered art by the majority. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely an artist would like the world to see, appreciate and understand the issues they are raising/addressing.

All I can see from this is a co-operation wanting to make money out of someone else?s work, therefore; Would you consider those people artists (those willing to sell their individual interpritation of a subject to a company).

I believe many would say that this is the only way for an artist to show the world their work - I would say "Thank you very much, you opened my eyes (or you entertained me) to the effect of xx amount of money".

If we were to take the above paragraph into the 'real' world, then use this as an example: You go to watch a film at the cinema, then, according to how much you felt it was worth, you pay after watching it.

I know, I know, the majority of people would pretend to say "it was sh1t, I'm not paying". However if we lived in a society where money, co-operations, business management etc wasn't an issue then a lot more people would contribute towards helping the artist out - Which neatly leads us to Torrents & P2P's. (Some of us can't monetarily contribute, but we can help show the rest of the world the artists' ideals.

Now it's just up to you - what do you believe???

You're living in a dream world.

Thank you for your incisive decisions on my mental state - now do you have anything else to mention, or are you just going to put down those who beleive in a better world than what we live in now??