P2P

[IsnipeWithAknife]

Just to start of, this is not a discussion ON peer to peer file sharing but rather a discussion ABOUT it.

My issue is, some of the stuff I want to do should be considered as fair use IMO. How different is downloading a TV show and recording it on your DVR. I don't know the rules about sharing DVR content (presumably with other DVR users) either by having other people come over and watching it on your TV, physically trading DVRs or hard drives, or just transferring the data over a network (like say a DVR to DVR network), or even to your computer. I think everyone can agree that the film/music industry has a very poor concept on user rights of their content and outdated content delivery

I pay a subscription fee for my DVR, so anything I download that I could have recorded should be fair use. Its not like I'm trying to cheat people. Where data comes from is all semantics and that companies persecuting people over that is just wrong. I think it would be cool if I could be entitled access to anything I can also access on regular television no matter how I get the data during the period I am paying for it.

Music and software I can see how illegally downloading it equals a loss of a sale. But movies COULD be a loss of a sale but it does not replace the experience of going to a theater with friends and getting price raped at the concession stand which is why some people still go to a cinema when they already have possession of the movie.

[mkosbie]

As it stands right now, this would probably be regulated by the same laws that regulate home video. It probably stipulates in your contract somewhere that the recorded content is "intended for private home use only". It's like when you purchase a movie at the store. You pay full sticker price, but you're still not allowed to show that movie in public, or for profit in private, without getting additional licensing.

[fieldshowqueen]

As it stands right now, this would probably be regulated by the same laws that regulate home video. It probably stipulates in your contract somewhere that the recorded content is "intended for private home use only". It's like when you purchase a movie at the store. You pay full sticker price, but you're still not allowed to show that movie in public, or for profit in private, without getting additional licensing.

Yeah ... what ^ said. And if you violate that the FBI comes to your house in those really cool shirts that say "FBI" so your entire neighborhood knows you are a bad guy, they slap you into jail for 10 years or more, and you are fined something like the entire GNP of the United States for the remainder of your life. It's sort of like tearing the tag off of a new pillow.

I think the contracts between the participants in a production (actors, producers, directors, crew, casting, etc.) are partially to blame for the current set up. Since they get a portion (something like .00001%) of each recording sold, they want to keep track of every single recording so they get paid. If the contracts were rewritten to be a flat fee, and more of an open market bargaining, then the sharing of recordings would be moot. But I don't see than happening any time soon.

And, on a different thought, most of the recordings I have seen from people aren't of the greatest quality, so I usually just fork out the $9.99 when the movie goes on sale at my local Costco.

[Flying bird]

Then there are those who think once things are made public (like over the internet), it's fair game to rip,share,burn,copy etc. etc.

[tSz42]

Well, it's obvious why downloading movies, music, and software for free off the internet is a problem; you didn't pay for the product.
As for TV shows though, I can understand why companies don't want those on P2P websites and whatnot because they don't get money from their season DVDs. You can't really say it's the equivalent of a DVR, because with DVRs you have commercials which go to pay for the program you want to watch. With Season DVDs the compromise is that you pay for the TV shows but without any commercials. TV shows you find on the web don't have the commercials in them so that is where I think companies get mad. Which is also why we're seeing a lot more advertising done DURING the show. People with TiVo and DVR can just skip all those commercials now.
As for paying for the DVR service, not sure if I'd consider it fair game to share with the world, but probably only for personal backup.

[IsnipeWithAknife]

I didnt say share with the world, share within a DVR network. other people who have access to the same content but didn't record it

If my broadband service is cable, the data is coming through the same wire.

[mkosbie]

I didnt say share with the world, share within a DVR network. other people who have access to the same content but didn't record it

If my broadband service is cable, the data is coming through the same wire.

There was actually a huge lawsuit about this recently. The most recent decision on I'm aware of was in March, but it may be appealed again to the Supreme Court. Cablevision tried to release an RS-DVR (Remote Storage DVR) service that worked EXACTLY LIKE a DVR, except the set-top box didn't store the data, Cablevision's network did. They argued that it was the same thing, just with a really long cable to the hard drive.

Unfortunately for them, and the American consumer, New York District Courts disagreed. It's been appealed to the Second Circuit court of appeals. Who knows how far it will go.

As of right now, retransmitting the data from a remote location without paying a licensing fee seems like its not OK though.

[JazzGeek]

I didnt say share with the world, share within a DVR network. other people who have access to the same content but didn't record it

If my broadband service is cable, the data is coming through the same wire.

There was actually a huge lawsuit about this recently. The most recent decision on I'm aware of was in March, but it may be appealed again to the Supreme Court. Cablevision tried to release an RS-DVR (Remote Storage DVR) service that worked EXACTLY LIKE a DVR, except the set-top box didn't store the data, Cablevision's network did. They argued that it was the same thing, just with a really long cable to the hard drive.

Unfortunately for them, and the American consumer, New York District Courts disagreed. It's been appealed to the Second Circuit court of appeals. Who knows how far it will go.

As of right now, retransmitting the data from a remote location without paying a licensing fee seems like its not OK though.

Funny. That's exactly how the OnDemand feature works on my cable box from Cox Cable. I routinely record stuff from the OnDemand feature rather than wait for the schedule.
Here's my take on this topic:
1. I've always equated the quality of mp3's with radio. Downloading mp3's is like listening to the radio for me. If I like something, I buy the CD (I own roughly 4000 CD's). I also create my own CD's of vinyl abums that may never be rereleased in CD form, live performances of groups I play with, as well as mixes to play in my car. (BTW, when I judge at a jazz festival, I tape comments as the bands play so band directors know exactly what I liked in their performances.)
2. File sharing amongst a small group of friends should be considered "fair use". File sharing through a newsgroup or bittorrent should be considered theft ---- faceless friends in a forum is not "fair use". I equate file sharing with friends like taping albums at a friend's house. File sharing amongst non-friends is piracy.

[LoyalTubist]

If you ever come here to Vietnam (or any place else in Southeast Asia), get used to seeing piracy. My wife bought a Windows computer from one of the best known computer stores in the country. Even though I am a Macintosh person, I tried to do something nice for my wife by upgrading all the Microsoft software so she could be up to date with the latest XP stuff. Most of the stuff couldn't be updated because the operating system that came with the computer was pirated. One of my employers is based in Singapore (one of a couple of Southeast Asian countries that frowns on piracy). It is that company's policy not to buy computers anywhere BUT Singapore.

Furthermore, the textbooks for the public school where I teach must be purchased by students. These are published by the Cambridge University Press (supposedly these are written in American English, but they use an awful lot of words with hyphens in them, like ice-cream and good-bye, which is not the way we write these words... Cambridge is a British publisher). Anyway, students can buy the real book for about ten bucks. There is a local republication (with Vietnamese footnotes) for about two bucks. And, if that is too expensive, the school sells its own bootleg version for less than a dollar.

Hey, if you want any kind of pirated items, come on over to Vietnam! Lots of luck getting it through customs in Los Angeles!

[The Aceman]

1. I've always equated the quality of mp3's with radio. Downloading mp3's is like listening to the radio for me. If I like something, I buy the CD (I own roughly 4000 CD's).

That was my take on it as well for a long time. But it doesn't hold up so much these days, the quality of CD's you can download for free online is pretty much as good as it gets.

[mkosbie]

Funny. That's exactly how the OnDemand feature works on my cable box from Cox Cable. I routinely record stuff from the OnDemand feature rather than wait for the schedule.

Yes and no. The biggest difference has to do with (surprise surprise) licensing fees, and whos getting paid. When you watch content on through Video On Demand services (VOD), the cable network broadcasting it to you pays a licensing fee to the original distributor, EXACTLY LIKE THEY DO WHEN THEY AIR THE CONTENT FOR THE FIRST TIME. Yes, it's "recorded", but it's still being paid for.

When you watch content off a DVR (or off Cablevision's proposed RS-DVR), there is no additional licensing. Because the content exists in a recorded form in the home (which since the days of VHS has been recognized as legal under copyright law as long as the content remains private), it does not have to be paid for again. With the RS-DVR service (or any kind of "remote viewing/remote sharing" of copyrighted content), there's a new transmission. It is not in the "private domain" the whole time. This is why the courts won't accept it.

[mkosbie]

For the record, I neither download music, nor buy CDs. Pandora is free, and it suits my needs just fine.

[IsnipeWithAknife]

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103/

[JazzGeek]

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103/

'zackly! Definitely supports my argument that mp3's are like radio........

[thatonehornguy]

[quote="IsnipeWithAknife"]http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103/[/quote]

I don't necessairly think that this article could be considered a credible source, somply because this study was conducted in a different country. Statistics are different in every country, i.e. crime rates, birth rates, etc. Whose to say that these statistics could be the same for Americans? For all we know, those statistics could be the exact opposite of what happens in America.

Also, this article doesn't apply to the topic of P2P with television shows across a private connection. This is a much more sensitive topic.