My short-lived life as a pirate
I've had Tivo and torrents on my mind a lot lately. One of the things that happens when you start linking to torrents is that people then ask you for help with them.
There are tricks to bittorrent, and if you're not aware of them things can slow way down. At some point I'll write a primer on it, but I was struck how after I'd send them a bunch of tips, I'd be asked questions like:
"For someone who's anti-piracy, you seem to know an awful lot about..."
Truth be told, depending on who you ask I probably am a 'pirate' when it comes to bittorrent, or at least was. Just probably not in the way you might think. For awhile, bittorrent just became my personal Tivo.
When it comes to software, I'm not pro-piracy whatsoever, although part of me keeps wanting to write a long rant on paying for fairly pricey Mac shareware only to find the author to disappear. I know when it comes to time-tracking software I've been out several times, so I can feel Rentzsch's pain when it comes to freaking out about proprietary formats.
I don't always enjoy paying for certain software, which means I'm not always running the most current version of some of the big ticket items. The big thing for me here is that it just doesn't feel right to be doing it, although I understand why some do and don't consider them to be evil. I just stay out of that scene, even though I know people in it.
However, for me, it just doesn't pass the "does it feel wrong" test. Even when it comes to my Collateral Damage talk, I wasn't condoning what they did, and I'm not down with what they did, I'm just less down with what's happening now.
I've certainly bent the rules when it comes to software, whenever the EULA or such just seemed insane about something stupid, like not being able to have the software on two computers or making me insert a floppy to start the software (probably just brought back bad memories for some). I'm not talking about running it concurrently on two computers, but rather having it installed on two computers.
It was recently brought to my attention that I've broken Apple's EULA several times, as have possibly tens of thousands of others, because their EULA forbids installing their software on anything but Apple hardware. It's an odd and disturbing thought, as I just wasn't even aware of that odd clause in the EULA forbidding it that I'd signed away.
I suppose I could be sued for that, but my actions there passed the "does it feel wrong" test, which brings us back to the main topic and how bittorrent became my Tivo.
I never got into movies online, it just didn't do much for me, primarily because you're usually looking at a 1.5 to 2 hour time commitment. I also don't have a big plasma screen nor home theatre setup, so for those movies I do decide I want to see, I head to the theater.
However it's different story for me when comes to TV. An average network or syndicated show is around 40 minutes plus commercials and credits (opening and closing). If you're talking about much of cable or DirecTv, like a show on HBO, you often get your full hour of content.
You're theoretically paying to not see commercials, and instead you just end up with mobsters constantly pulling out products from the fridge and conspicuously talking with them in their hands.
It's all a big blur of product placement and revenue shakedowns and shavings at this point, but that's OK, because there are shows I love to watch. My problem was that while I can spare an hour here and there, my schedule very rarely matches up with the TV's.
I mentioned a bit of this back in Convergence Kills:
My only other option really is to turn to something like Bittorrent or something similarly illegal which, while it's fine and works well enough, pretty much removes all the immediacy from the decision.
I knew a hell of a lot about bittorrent at that point, and used it often to get distros of software and such. I hadn't yet moved onto using it as my personal Tivo, but the writing was on the wall. I was turned onto TVTorrents.net, which made it insanely easy to watch what I wanted to watch on my schedule.
Go, search for your show, download the torrent, and set it running in the background or on another machine. Combined with RSS and it was just effortless and the groove happened surprisingly quick.
This was really the key to me; I could just cue up a bunch of torrents and, no matter where I was or what time it was, watch the content I wanted to watch. My schedule became much freer, and I was able to watch many more of the shows I loved to watch.
This is precisely why people love their Tivos and the other DVR boxes. The old paradigm of having to race home to catch your show, or hurry and finish dinner because the show is coming on, and having to choose to watch one show over another because they've been placed head-to-head on the schedule is archaic at this point.
However, my newfound bliss was short lived, when the MPAA went after a bunch of the torrent sites and started to systematically sue them into oblivion. TvTorrents.net was no more, and while there are other sites in foreign lands that host them, it'd be a hassle and I haven't gone through the effort.
Round One to the MPAA and their ilk, although it basically just means I've stopped watching much TV. I'm not alone, every study out there says TV is losing eyeballs to other mediums, and this is a prime example of why.
Now, would say I was pirating content by getting it from the internet. However, and here is the big kicker, it completely passed the "does it feel wrong" test, and continues to, and at some point I can easily see myself doing it again.
My problem here is that I wasn't watching anything I hadn't already paid for. Many of us have a golden pipe coming into our homes now, and through that pipe comes internet, TV, and now even phone service via VOIP. The specifics can be different depending on whether you're talking about cable TV versus DirecTv or basic satellite TV, but it's all going the same route. One pipe, lots of services.
In my case, my cable company also provides my internet access. I mentioned I'd stopped watching much TV, however that doesn't mean I'm not paying for it. You can really tell that the cable companies are a bit freaked out by things like DirecTv and DSL, simply because of their bundling tactics. It actually costs more to have internet access through them if you choose not to also have cable.
To give an example, your cable internet might cost $65. For $55, you get internet plus basic cable. Add on another few dollars and you have digital cable with all the trimmings for when you happen to be around to watch. Many others are in this boat, and there's certainly a method to their madness.
I don't feel bad that I was watching the shows on my schedule instead of theirs; just as I don't feel bad for downloading large files through a service I've paid for. While you can start talking about different types of infrastructure and expectations, at the end of the day I'm getting it all through the same pipe and it's content I've paid to see.
Now, not everyone who was pulling down TV shows was in the same boat, however it's probably more than you might think. You still need a decent connection to be able to pull down 350-700meg files, even over bittorrent, and while some of them might be DSL people freeloading on content a huge number of them are people who just happened to miss the show because of their schedule and want to see it.
The one argument I've heard regarding this that can hold some sway is that while it's true you're paying for the premium shows, many of the syndicated shows that end up online have their commercials trimmed out, and as such you're stealing content because it's the advertising that pays for the content in the first place.
The idea is that yes, you are paying for cable, but now instead of not paying for commercials, you're paying for the infrastructure and better quality.
Somewhere in there is probably a valid point, and I don't really have an answer except that it's hard for me to feel badly about it except to say that the consumers expectations on how they'll view their content are changing and they'll have to figure out a way to deal. The personal Tivo idea just can't be ignored; it's real and it's not going away.
My gut tells me that as we move away from this artificial head-to-head watch-one-or-the-other crap, more revenue will be spread around and it'll all work out and TV will be even more profitable than it is now, but it's not something I have a real answer to. Either way, we're already doing it with Tivo functionality in general; there's a reason why those with Tivo always start watching a show a few minutes later than everyone else.
All I know is that it's slipped past the "does it feel right" test for me, handily, which is also something you have to deal with. I don't want it for free, I'm paying for it, I just want to be able to watch it when and where I choose. That's it. And because it's passed the "does it feel right" test for me, it means I'm not currently doing it because of a lack of opportunity.
Point me to another site where I can get up and running with no hassle again, and I'll have my personal Tivo back. Because of how technology works, those opportunities always come back around. And, if you believe I was pirating content, that means it's a pirate's life for me when the opportunity presents itself to get my TV the way I want it.
It's not an ideal situation. Chances are that site will eventually get sued into oblivion. There are certainly things an established company can bring to the table, like reliability, quality and speed, but there are no credible alternatives.
Now, many of you might ask, "Why not just get one of the Tivo options and watch what you want when you want to? Or, why not just get a DirecTv satellite deal which is pushing it's own DirecTivo deal? Or, why not build your own DVR system using off the shelf stuff?
Using a Tivo from the Mac has improved immensely since the old days of the Series 1, where you could get your content out thanks to online instructions, but it really wasn't anything I was inclined to deal with. Let alone upgrading the software when it was necessary.
Tivo has a decent desktop client for the Mac now, and through some things you probably aren't supposed to do it's possible to view content on your home network on your Mac. If you start doing things you're not really expected to be doing, you can even extract the content from your Tivo and rip it to whatever format you want and watch it however, and wherever, you want.
With what I was doing before, it was literally 5 minutes of effort, start to finish, if that. You're primarily waiting for things to download, and on a fast torrent with a lot of peers, that happens surprisingly fast.
When I had a spare 45 minutes after finishing my work at midnight I could just grab a copy of Spooks or BattleStar Galactica or some Discovery Channel show and sit down to a beer and some good content. Or, if I knew I was going to be stuck on the train for a few hours I could throw a few episodes on the iBook and be good to go.
While all that is possible with something like Tivo, it's often not ideal and can be incredibly tedious. It's like RSS: if a site doesn't have a feed, chances are I'm not going to ever see that it's updated. My goal here is to simplify and make the process more efficient, not to spend my time transcoding between formats and keeping it all straight.
TV simply isn't that important to me, even though I enjoy certain shows, and I'll just end up reading up on a codec or something else instead of dealing with the hassle.
But wait, you say, TivoToGo takes this into consideration, and allows you to take their DRM-protected files between whatever devices you want! Home computer, laptop, doesn't matter! I'd look at it as an option, but it doesn't exist for the Mac. They've said it's coming, but they've given zero timetable for when. It's understandable, considering what their current scheme depends on to work on Windows, but basically means it's currently not a solution.
And yes, I could spend the time, and money, to make up my own DVR system. I just have no desire to do so. I know I could spend $350 for EyeTV if I wanted to use Mac hardware for it, or MythTV if I wanted to use x86 hardware, but we go back to the dealing with stuff I just have no desire to deal with.
I'm not in this one for geek points, and unfortunately the notion of having to shell out hundreds of dollars, and effort, to view something I've already paid for is viscerally rejected by my brain. With prejudice.
Am I wrong for wanting what I want, and expecting what I expect? I certainly allow for the possibility.
However, while I might be wrong, the problem for these companies is that it doesn't feel wrong, and I doubt any amount of indoctrination will change that.
Every single time an entrenched content industry has gotten over their fear of a technology, and embraced it instead of lobbying against it, both they and consumers have come out winners. The genie of Tivo isn't going back into the bottle, but we consumers yet again have no credible alternative to P2P networks.
The story hasn't quite been written on the digital age yet, but initiatives like the iTunes Music Store make me think that when it comes to going digital, history will rhyme yet again. What makes the digital age exciting is that it's happening on our timetable, and not theirs.
Posted by drunkenbatmanFebruary 09, 2005, at 01:11 AM
Comments (35)
Posted by: Kevin Ballard at February 9, 2005 02:14 AM
I've enjoyed having a TiVo for a while now, and it really does dramatically change the way you watch TV. For instance, I now watch the Daily Show a day later than it airs, because that way I can watch it with my parents after dinner instead of catching it at 11 (or at one of the rebroadcast times).
I also use BitTorrent to get some TV shows, for 2 reasons. The first is shows that I missed (like the premier of American Dad - I didn't know about it until after it aired), and the 2nd is to get shows that haven't aired yet here in the US but have already aired in Europe or Canada, like Stargate SG-1/Atlantis episodes. There's 2 sites I use for this. The first is btefnet.net - they only have TV shows, and it's a simple, fast site. The second is torrentspy.com, which contains torrents for a bunch of different stuff (although I only use it for TV shows - I find movies too large and too poor-quality to bother downloading, especially since I have Netflix)
Posted by: Brian Strahle at February 9, 2005 02:16 AM
And yes, I could spend the time, and money, to make up my own DVR system. I just have no desire to do so. I know I could spend $350 for EyeTV if I wanted to use Mac hardware for it, or MythTV if I wanted to use x86 hardware, but we go back to the dealing with stuff I just have no desire to deal with.
Not to pick nits, but there is a project underway to bring MythTV to OS X. It is in beta and right now only the front end is available, but it is coming.
MythTV is where the future of PVR lies. I have had two Tivos and they were great to own and have the best interface on the market. They are also underpowered and now Tivo is locking them down with DRM.
Posted by: Matt Simpson at February 9, 2005 02:41 AM
Point me to another site where I can get up and running with no hassle again, and I'll have my personal Tivo back.
http://www.btefnet.net/
TVTorrents.net used to be my favourite, too.
Posted by: Chucky at February 9, 2005 05:39 AM
Blind Spots
"When it comes to software, I'm not pro-piracy whatsoever ... for me, it just doesn't pass the "does it feel wrong" test."
"...pirating content by getting it from the internet ... completely passed the "does it feel wrong" test, and continues to..."
May I suggest that this is pure hypocrisy, probably driven by the fact that you can identify with software developers more than you can identify with content producers?
"My problem here is that I wasn't watching anything I hadn't already paid for."
Let us count the problems and possible problems here.
Imagine you are watching Deadwood via BitTorrent. We will also imagine you are paying for HBO, (although if you have a ready supply of your HBO shows via BitTorrent, many folks would just stop paying.)
Problem #1: By downloading Deadwood via BitTorrent, you are also uploading the show to several others, some of which are almost definitely not paying for HBO. You are an active participant in uploading the content to others who are watching something they haven't "already paid for".
Problem #2: When you watch Deadwood on digital cable, you are being metered. When you download it via BitTorrent, you are not. By not being metered, you are directly affecting how much the content producers will receive for future work.
Problem #3: You really are fully on the honor system about not downloading shows that aren't on a pay channel you are paying for, right? Because without that, you are pirating content in the most direct form.
Problem #4: You're not downloading shows that are not currently airing, right? Content providers depend on DVD sales from fans who want to see non-current material. If you're downloading old seasons of The Sopranos that are not currently airing, you're pirating the content provider's archives.
Now imagine that you're watching American Dad via BitTorrent.
"The one argument I've heard regarding this ... is that ... many of the syndicated shows that end up online have their commercials trimmed out, and as such you're stealing content because it's the advertising that pays for the content in the first place."
"The idea is that yes, you are paying for cable, but now instead of not paying for commercials, you're paying for the infrastructure and better quality."
Problem #5: You seem to think that by paying for the pipe, it's OK to rip off the content providers. Comcast and Seth McFarlane are not the same entitiy. Seth McFarlane doesn't see a penny of the money you pay for internet access.
-----------------------
I don't think anything you're doing is completely horrible.
What I do object to is your thinking that there is any moral distinction between pirating entertainment content and pirating software. Watching American Dad without Seth McFarlane being compensated or Deadwood without the show's producers being compensated isn't any different than using iWork without Apple being compensated.
The only reason that one passes your "does it feel wrong" test and the other doesn't has to do with your own personal blind spots. The two are morally and ethically the same.
Posted by: Hugh at February 9, 2005 05:56 AM
You can really tell that the cable companies are a bit freaked out by things like DirecTv and DSL, simply because of their bundling tactics. It actually costs more to have internet access through them if you choose not to also have cable.
Mine did this too after first screwing me on the cable modem and saying it would cost more to use the one I bought instead of leasing from them. Asanine! I finally dumped those bastards altogether and switched to DirecTV and yes it came with Tivo. It doesn't give good integration with my Mac but for high definition content it is the best there is.
Posted by: Zachery Hess at February 9, 2005 06:36 AM
Chucky, did you and I even read the same post? :-D This topic is sure to be controversial, but I'm always amused by the comments on this site.
I see no double standard between his view on software and content. He is saying piracy in software is not OK, and neither is taking content. He is not saying it is OK to pirate, he is using the word facetiously (Perhaps in too subtle a way?) to draw a distinction between those stealing it and those changing where they see what they have paid for.
If you have paid for the right to watch the "American Dad" (New to this show, but I rarely watch TV) on your cable subscription but are not in front of the TV when it is on, are you a pirate? If you set your VCR to tape it and watch it later, are you a pirate? If you fast forward through the commercials, are you a pirate? If you buy a Tivo and use it to record the show and watch it later, are you a pirate?
All very good questions. I suspect the RIAA and the MPAA would say yes to all of the above and are trying to have TiVo outlawed. Mandating that fast forward be removed because people can fast forward through commercials seems outrageous but they have tried that! I saw this on several DVDs.
Others downloading not having paid to view it is the core of his argument. There is no "legal" and "credible" alternative. He does not specify what he considers credible, but he does cite the iTunes store.
Posted by: Chucky at February 9, 2005 06:47 AM
"If you set your VCR to tape it and watch it later, are you a pirate?"
No.
"If you fast forward through the commercials, are you a pirate?"
No.
"If you buy a Tivo and use it to record the show and watch it later, are you a pirate?"
No.
And neither are you a pirate if you buy a music CD, and rip the album for use on your iPod.
All four of these situations fall under fair use.
But the five possible "problems" I outlined in my original post do not fall under fair use, and are directly affecting the writers, directors, animators, actors, editors, carpenters, etc. who work at producing entertainment content.
Posted by: Higgs at February 9, 2005 06:50 AM
It was recently brought to my attention that I've broken Apple's EULA several times, as have possibly tens of thousands of others, because their EULA forbids installing their software on anything but Apple hardware
Hey DB, I don't think that EULA clause is really intended to go after individuals. If you go to the PearPC instructions for installing OS X on your Intel, it isn't even mentioned. I've seen PearPC talked about on ScreenSavers so I think if Apple would make a stink they would have done so by now.
I think that clause is to keep someone from making their own PowerPC hardware and buying a copy of OS X and putting it on it. Or to keep HP from shipping it on Intel boxes if the Pentium performance went through the roof and emulation was decent. I wouldn't worry. :)
Posted by: Rory at February 9, 2005 07:01 AM
I watch a number of my favourite TV shows and anime on my Mac via bittorrent too. Living in the UK we often have to wait months for current episodes to be screened over here so it's nice to be able to get them as they are shown. When it comes to anime, you might have to wait years for it to be subbed or dubbed and shown where ever you live, if at all. Is it piracy? Technically it is, but to be honest I think that's because the law is wrong rather than the act itself.
Am I depriving the makers of these programmes any money? No - in fact I'm probably contributing more to them than those who just watch the episodes on TV. Why? Because if I really like something I'll buy the DVD box sets, the soundtrack, the manga novels or what ever other merchandise catches my eye. For example I've got the first five seasons of Stargate SG1 on DVD even though I watched all those episodes via the Internet first.
Hopefully eventually content providers will just catch on and start offering everything for free download directly, if people really enjoy something then they'll buy the DVDs or the t-shirts or what ever. They might even buy things because of product placement. Sure not everyone will, but then most people that watch these things on TV are not buying everything they see advertised in the commercials, does that mean they are stealing too?
Posted by: Chucky at February 9, 2005 07:18 AM
"Am I depriving the makers of these programmes any money? No - in fact I'm probably contributing more to them than those who just watch the episodes on TV. Why? Because if I really like something I'll buy the DVD box sets, the soundtrack, the manga novels or what ever other merchandise catches my eye."
Sure.
And I'm sure there are folks who pirate iWork and rationalize it by saying they give money to Apple when they buy hardware.
Both are rationalizations for people to feel good about themselves and for them to avoid calling what they are doing by its proper name.
What about the programs you watch via BitTorrent and don't like enough to buy any merchandise? Do you think that's not piracy because you retrospectively decided you didn't receive enough enjoyment from the viewing?
Posted by: SH at February 9, 2005 07:23 AM
Oh, DB, DB, DB. You got balls, dude.
You want to keep paying your cable company, but to stop sending a signal for your TV and instead route it over packets. Dream on! The bandwidth was there for years before the content industries wised up to digital distribution for music. Most still haven't and could still fuck it up! Now that it is there for video, it will be more years till they wise up. circa-2008. Right now they are just squeezing TiVo until it dies. TiVo is not healthy and on its death bed.
TiVo will die, but the first to innovate a market is not always the successful one. Just like Napster launched it all and then died for iTunes to take over.
The same things Steve Jobs said about the recording business being fucked up is just as true for the cable cos. They put all those channels into blocks you have to buy as a bundle for a reason! They pay money per channel and the popular channels subsidize the crappy channels. They go to a model where you pay per show or viewing and it all goes to hell. Just like Britney Spears millions of sales make up for all the albums that do no business.
Posted by: Chucky at February 9, 2005 07:42 AM
"TiVo will die, but the first to innovate a market is not always the successful one. Just like Napster launched it all and then died for iTunes to take over."
Napster died because it was pure piracy and the courts stepped it. The ITMS took over because it allowed content providers to get paid.
BitTorrent is just like Napster. No one gets paid. And while the distributed nature of the system makes it harder for the courts to step in, the moral and ethical aspects of BitTorrent are no different from Napster.
TiVo is not piracy, and is only dying because of competition from functionally equivalent systems. What replaces TiVo won't be all that different from it except for the brand.
Posted by: drunkenbatman at February 9, 2005 07:51 AM
Chucky, thanks for the comments.
I'm taking off for the day, but do me a favor and lay off the comments for awhile. 4 out of 13 comments are from you, and the other 9 are all from separate individuals.
You're obviously worked up about the issue, but waking up to find one guy posting a bunch of comments in point/counterpoint to every other comment is a little wiggy before I've had my coffee.
Just relax a bit, and come back this evening/afternoon or something when it's cooled down. :)
Posted by: Carol at February 9, 2005 07:55 AM
What does PVR stand for? I hate technical acronyms that aren't explained!
Posted by: Matt at February 9, 2005 07:58 AM
For me honesty is quite important. I find myself struggeling with myself when it comes to watching a downloaded movie starring big-name Hollywoot types who rake in tens of millions _per picture_!! That just has to do with my thinking that a movie star simply isn't woth millions per picture. It's entertainment after all.
Going to music I have less problems not downloading since I tend to listen to less known smaller bands. Again, downloading Madonna, Usher isn't a moral problem for me since they all have way too much money.
Just to clarify, I dont' DL this sort of stuff simply because it's illegal. That's enough for me. I try my best to live an honest life. I simply feel little pitty when those musicians complain about lost revenues.
I do share the hung over batman's view on DLing show on public TV. I live in germany and I DL some shows running here simply because I want to watch them in english. I pay 45 Euros for german TV. That in turn pays for the syndication fees paid by the german broadcasters...
Posted by: Chucky at February 9, 2005 08:14 AM
"waking up to find one guy posting a bunch of comments in point/counterpoint to every other comment is a little wiggy before I've had my coffee."
I usually figure I can get away with such behavior as long as I'm civil, coherent, and open to listening.
But I certainly respect the wishes of the house, and I'll restrict my posting frequency here in the future. Cheers.
Posted by: Rory at February 9, 2005 09:09 AM
What about the programs you watch via BitTorrent and don't like enough to buy any merchandise? Do you think that's not piracy because you retrospectively decided you didn't receive enough enjoyment from the viewing?
If you don't enjoy something why should you have to pay for it? The whole point of entertainment is that it entertains you, if it fails to do that it's equivalent to a faulty product. If you buy something at a shop and you take it home and it turns out to be crap don't you take it back and get a refund? Either way you end up paying nothing for trying something.
The Internet is just replacing TV as the medium to get these things, if they were available for a small fee to download I'd have no problem buying them, as long they were not so wrapped up in DRM that they infringed my fair use rights. But until that happens I see nothing wrong with downloading these shows and supporting the creators through other means.
Both are rationalizations for people to feel good about themselves and for them to avoid calling what they are doing by its proper name.
Well I hope by doing everything by the book that you enjoy supporting huge monolithic corporations that lobby governments every day of the week to take away consumers rights so they can make every penny they can out of you. Frankly copyright and patent law need some serious revision because things are just getting insane. Ultimately the only people to benefit are the content distributors, not the consumers or the artists/actors and to me that is the real moral issue here.
Posted by: Chris Karr at February 9, 2005 10:39 AM
Wow. Talk about timely...
I sympathize with your position. I've managed to stay away from downloading copyrighted material for a while, but I've started to crack myself. Since I have enough video content from Tivo and NetFlix to keep me busy, I've been looking for a set of foreign soundtracks that I couldn't find anywhere in the States.
I did a BitTorrent search for the content and found some torrent files. I have downloaded the files over the last week and imported those into my iTunes. I do feel slightly guilty about it as I didn't pay for them, but on the other hand, I couldn't pay for them if I wanted. If I manage to stumble across the discs (and I did find a few last week), I'll pick them up (which I did). I look at it this way - the content is on loan until I can purchase it. Is it copyright infringement? Yup. Am I doing this maliciously? Nope, I'd love to compensate the artists. I just hope that the moral balance evens out as I crow about the music to friends and family and entice them to try it out.
Posted by: George at February 9, 2005 12:17 PM
I have a question and Chucky is probably the one to answer it :-(
If I subscribe to cable, how do they pay the creators? Do they pay a flat fee per subscriber or do they keep track of how many subscribers actually watch the program and pay per viewer?
-----
If it's the former (flat), then the creator is getting paid no matter where I get the programming to actually watch. If the later, then I guess I would be screwing someone out of some moola.
-----
By the way Chucky, being as vocal as you are, you loose a lot by using a fake email address. Are you just a cable company schill?
Posted by: Jason Terhorst at February 9, 2005 01:16 PM
Package deals really hurt consumers, and the quality of cable, dish, and broadcast networks will continue to be crap (read: "reality" TV), until Congress forces the cable companies to knock it off and offer a la carte service for the same per-unit cost as it is now. I'm not going to be getting cable TV until that happens. The Viacom and Disney twits won't be getting any of my money or viewership until they can actually make material with taste and quality. Chucky, since you most likely work for one of them, pass on the message. A LA CARTE! A LA CARTE! Stop trying to cheat consumers and develop actual quality programming! Allow the consumers to decide. MTV, VH1, and the Disney networks will die, but better quality channels will rise up to fill the void. And more people will subscribe.
Posted by: solios at February 9, 2005 01:38 PM
I find it amusing that the majority of old shows I'm interested in (a short list, admittedly) aren't available on DVD and aren't being rerun ANYWHERE. In this case, bittorrent is a lot like using soulseek for that album that's been out of print since the mid 80s that isn't available in the hemisphere.
When nobody's bothered to put out Max Headroom or Twin Peaks on DVD, nobody's bothering to air them on TV anymore, and they're just a click and a week or so away.... I mean, damn, yo.
Then there's the bit with Battlestar Galactica getting aired on SkyOne WELL in advance of the Sci-Fi channel run. The SkyOne run was done by the time the Sci-Fi run had hit episode three or four...
Fansubs if you're into anime, and I was happy to get my hands on Farscape : PKWars, as I don't actually know anybody with cable... and had I, it would have been exactly like other TV things I'd wanted to see but lacked the access to- I'd bribe somebody to tape it for me and watch it later.
bt has three MAJOR advantages for me- the first is that I don't need to waste money on a TV, Tivo, and cable subscription. The second is that suddenly TV's a lot like weather and news- what I want, more or less when I want it. The third is that while I'm paying for the privelege (ISP bill, don't'cha know..), I'm NOT paying for commercials. Paying to watch ads has always rankled me. :P
Posted by: Mathias at February 9, 2005 01:47 PM
However, while I might be wrong, the problem for these companies is that it doesn't feel wrong, and I doubt any amount of indoctrination will change that.
The problem for these companies is that people with standing are putting their stamp of approval on it. I don't know how many readers you have, but how many will come away moved towards your position? Large sites like PVRblog are are posting how-to articles for RSS and BitTorrent to "never miss an episode" also.
DB, this is a risky post when the MPAA is suing hundreds of people, but perhaps you knew that and have your reasons. You sure do seem to be whacking hornets nests lately.
It's a good read. But it won't change anything. We are years away from what you are asking for. Unless they are already doing it, just working out the licensing issues for content they broadcast will take that.
I don't think you will see the cable companies do this first either, but a startup who uses unoriginal (syndicated) content to start their internet network.
Posted by: at February 9, 2005 02:01 PM
The comments I have skimmed are completely off base from the original article. Wow.
Posted by: Twist at February 9, 2005 02:05 PM
I am looking forward to video-on-demand services if they have decent pricing structures. $20-30 per month for access to a decent library of video-on-demand would rock. I have heard of a few plans that had rather bad price-points though, similar to current PPV movie service for each show.
I would love a Media Center PC running MythTV but can't really afford one and it would probably take me six months to get all the software installed and working right.
Posted by: Tim Bell at February 9, 2005 02:10 PM
I purchased a Series 2 TiVo on sale last year and it totally changed how I watch TV. The interface is fantastic, almost Apple-good! Really innovate stuff in the box and interface. The quick rewind feature alone is worth the money when the wife says "What did he just say?" and I miss what was said because she was asking questions...
There are some negatives... TiVo's don't have the most storage now. Version 1.8 of their desktop software works great even if it uses the CPU, but they really need to have 2.0 as soon as possible! I am so hooked I am looking at picking up a TiVo HD model, but now there are rumors of the company dying.
I really don't know what I would do if TiVo went away, I hope the alternatives are improving. I wouldn't want to go back to regular TV again. If they are in real trouble, I hope Apple buys them. They both make great products that are short on internal expansion. ;)
Posted by: Ed Gordon at February 9, 2005 02:16 PM
I have spent this week trying to deal with tivo's .ty format on osx and it has been a frustrating experience. The link you posted was useful in some ways (I actually used it this week) but the ty to mpg converters were all very frustrating. Getting movies onto my computer and playing them via mplayer osx is really easy. I think tivo has a place (quick, disposable content that you watch on your tv, not a laptop), there is also a need to take content with you or archive it for later viewing (DVD hopefully). Maybe you should have to show a cable bill to login to TVTorrents. Just kidding.
Posted by: Jon R. at February 9, 2005 03:33 PM
I second Rory's first point, living overseas and having to wait months for shows to get here. In my case, I live in Israel and sometimes have to wait even a year or two for the less popular shows (even HBO's Six Feet Under fits in this category), if they get here at all. Another show I heard of that was not shown here, I downloaded a few episodes of, and just bought the full series DVD. I think this is the same sort of dilemna a lot of lesser-known musicians are in. What's better for the content-provider with regard to consumers like me with no access to the content w/o the internet: zero exposure and zero income (for shows that are not shown here at all), or decent recognition and a chance at income?
Another issue particular to Israel is that if enough people download a show, love it, tell all their friends to download/watch it, and pressure TV stations to bring the show, chances are actually rather high that the TV station will do all it can to do so. What does the content-provider have to lose? They get a solid fanbase and a source of income, where otherwise, without the internet, they'd have none of the above.
Many times after watching new series before they even get here, by the time they do I've told all my friends and they're all interested, creating more viewers (and ratings) just because of the exposure and hype individuals can create.
Also, if there were decent video-on-demand options here, I'd gladly subscribe for the few shows that I do watch, but these options seldom get here.
Posted by: drunkenbatman at February 10, 2005 05:25 AM
Chucky, we're cool. :) I was just about to head out and was smelling a flame war brewing.
Posted by: Chucky at February 10, 2005 07:53 AM
"If I subscribe to cable, how do they pay the creators? Do they pay a flat fee per subscriber or do they keep track of how many subscribers actually watch the program and pay per viewer?"
Neither.
Content creators sell their wares to broadcasters. Broadcasters then sell their channels to the cable companies.
When the content creators determine how much they can charge for their work, it then all comes down to ratings. If you watch American Dad on Fox via digital cable, you are being metered. Fox registers that the audience for the show has gone up by one. Fox can then charge their advertisers another penny to advertise on the show. And Seth McFarlane can charge Fox another penny when he negotiates with Fox to provide another season of American Dad.
If you watch American Dad by downloading it via BitTorrent, no one gets paid for the work.
"By the way Chucky, being as vocal as you are, you loose a lot by using a fake email address. Are you just a cable company schill?"
Any regular reader of drunkenblog should be aware of the problems of email spam.
I'm not a cable company shill, nor am I anybody's shill for that matter, but I have worked in the content creation field in the past.
My brief here is not for the cable companies, but for the content creators. In fact, I tried to take bateman to task for absolving himself of moral responsibility for pirating content creators by rationalizing that he was paying the cable companies.
----------------
And just to clarify my position, I'm not on a jihad against piracy. I've personally broken software EULA's and personally tried out the old Napster and the new BitTorrent.
My point is that there isn't a moral or ethical distinction between pirating software and pirating entertainment.
Just because a show has aired on free TV doesn't mean it's not piracy to download that show on BitTorrent. Just because you're sending a check to your cable company doesn't mean it's not piracy to download entertainment on BitTorrent. Just because Madonna is rich doesn't mean it's not piracy to download her album on BitTorrent. Just because a show hasn't aired in your country doesn't mean it's not piracy to download it on BitTorrent.
If you want to pirate software or entertainment, that's fine by me. Like I said, my own hands are not perfectly clean on this front.
Just don't delude yourself with elaborate rationalizations to convince yourself that you're not pirating if that's obviously what you are doing. One way or another, you are enjoying entertainment that many people worked hard to create, most of whom are not wealthy, without them being compensated.
Both bateman's original post and many of the comments are filled with folks who are pirating entertainment and providing false rationales for how their behavior isn't really piracy. It's not the piracy that annoys me, it's the hypocrisy.
Posted by: Elle at February 10, 2005 09:10 AM
Heya - just wanted to say I enjoy reading your blog regularly, and am glad to be able to chip in on a subject I actually know something about. :)
To wit, torrent sites.
tvtorrents is still extant, at http://www.tvtorrents.ws/.
http://btefnet.com (or .net or .org or .info) is probably the premier TV torrent site.
http://www.tv-swarm.com is another reasonable one.
They're all much of a muchness, although they do have a slightly different mix of shows on offer.
As for the "does it feel wrong" argument - to me, no. I download TV eps via bittorrent for several reasons:
1) I'm in Australia, which means there are a lot of American shows that just never get screened here. Further, those that are screened here often get pre-empted repeatedly, and it's very hard to watch them in sequence.
2) I'm in a TV black spot, and I simply can't get free-to-air reception where I live. I'm not going to pay for cable to get the shows everyone else in my city can get for free. (Cable networks are much less common here, and 99% of the 'big shows' are on FTA tv here.)
I feel no moral compunction about doing this, particularly given reason #2. I've bought DVD releases of *every* TV series that I've enjoyed enough to download more than three episodes.
Posted by: vinnie at February 11, 2005 10:06 PM
TvTorrents has only changed domain it's still up and running.. thankfully
http://tvtorrents.ws/
Posted by: Brett Nordquist at February 12, 2005 07:30 PM
I've downloaded the occasional episode of "24" when I'd forget to set my Tivo. But Tivo has a big advantage over any of the PC or Mac based DVR solutions: My wife and kids can run it. Many of the other solutions would require too much babysitting or handholding in order to work. A DirecTivo has worked well for our family. Sure, I can move program onto my computer but I don't need to do that 99.9% of the time for the reasons you stated. Enjoy your blog, BTW.
Posted by: nothereyet at February 22, 2005 01:38 PM
Just to note that you do in fact pay for virtually all TV shows, whether you watch them or not. They're funded by advertisers - largely national or international advertisers - who produce some of the products and services you pay for. This is even more true for the shows on broadcast channels (not that there's any shortage of ads on Showtime or SciFi). Thus, much of the cost of what you buy goes to TV programming, whether you like it or not. Seen from a marketing standpoint, it's essentially a massive, distributed kind of bundling - which is itself a codeword for those situations where the consumer has no choice. It resembles a tax on every individual who wants to be part of the society. Demonstrate an equivalent in the software industry and the moral equivalence argument might have more weight (though it wouldn't matter - morality is a personal judgement, and DB has already explained his with the "does it feel wrong" test). It certainly has a legal equivalence, though - copyright law doesn't care much about the contents of the work copied.
The Neilsen ratings system is pretty much a joke at actually determining who's watching any of the drivel on TV, and almost certainly wouldn't know whether or not you in particular are tuning in (for anyone reading this). That's because it's not designed to be effective or accurate, but to continue a system of control and income for Neilsen as well as keeping the rest of the big ol' Hollywood wheel of paranoia turning. Don't fool yourself that you're going to keep your favourite show on the air by faithfully tuning in instead of grabbing a copy from a filesharing network. The producers of TV programming will keep doing what they're doing - you're already paying for it, and you have no input into what comes out of the process. The only way this model changes is when it fails entirely, and ad-supported TV goes away for good. And when that happens, we'll talk again. ;)
Posted by: prof. rabbit at March 30, 2005 09:44 AM
what about those of us in Aussie? we don't have the infrastructure at the level you do. We have shows that get axed by the free-to-air networks, sometimes in the middle of a series, if you were interested, tough.
So p2p or torrent is the only way to see the rest of the show.
Regards
Excellent post! Without Napster and MP3s being traded there would have been no impetus for iTMS. The biggest innovation of the MPAA and TV people has been getting your DVDs in the mail. They are dinosaurs.