Downloading TV shows

SkittlePokerSkittlePoker
in Off Topic Lounge
Is it wrong to download a TV show? If I miss it one night and It's not on again, is it alright for me to download the show and watch it?

IMO, I think it is ok. If you record a show and loan me the tape to watch it that's ok isn't it? If someone records a show and I download it to watch it (and delete it afterwards) then I think it's ok, I think it's the same thing as borrowing a tape.

Discuss.

Comments

  • literationliteration
    I think we should be asking is it ok to record the show on our VCR? Sounds a bit silly doesn't it?

    I also use your approach on a missed show (24, BSG or poker)
    Download, view and delete.
  • ol-stone-faceol-stone-face
    Is it wrong? Yes, probably. Do I feel guilty about it? No absolutely not. Should you? Who am I to say. It's what happens when a disruptive technology shakes the very foundation of an industry unwilling to embrace the possibilities.
    I would be willing to pay for legal bittorrents but that option is not available to me.
  • iceice
    I think it is fine. As soon as the show has aired, it is "public" in a sense. Its the same as using a VHS tape to record your shows. As long as you don't turn around and try to sell it for profit, you'll be fine.
  • Paul3221Paul3221
    I think it's totally fine, as long as it's aired on TV, you could have recorded it without consequence. A lot of times, I just wait until a day or two after, and download it. Then I can watch it without commercials at my leisure.
  • BBC ZBBC Z
    Paul3221 wrote:
    I think it's totally fine, as long as it's aired on TV, you could have recorded it without consequence. A lot of times, I just wait until a day or two after, and download it. Then I can watch it without commercials at my leisure.

    haha.. How do you think the networks get paid? Based on ratings and the commercials that are shown. When you neither watch the show on the network nor watch the commercials, I think it's far from 'totally fine'.
  • SkittlePokerSkittlePoker
    BBC Z wrote:
    haha.. How do you think the networks get paid? Based on ratings and the commercials that are shown. When you neither watch the show on the network nor watch the commercials, I think it's far from 'totally fine'.

    Watch the commercials? You mean besides the product placement that permiates tv shows these days (I believe the networks make a healthy amount of cash from this type of advertising also)?

    The ratings is an interesting point you make and my initial thought/reaction is wouldn't they get higher/more accurate ratings if there was a way to get the shows (via the internet) directly from them? Combine the product placement with new forms of commercials and a service where anyone in the world could go and get eh shows in a decent quality, to me that would be something I would be very interested in. It reminds me of the old "tv on demand" type of thinking (remember those old Microsoft promo videos that featured the house of the future?). I could go and select any show I wanted to watch at any time.

    Cheers
  • SkittlePokerSkittlePoker
    Speak of the devil ...
    techdirt
  • AstroboyAstroboy
    The ratings are solely used to determine how popular a show is which in turn determines how much each advertising slot will cost the advertiser. BBC Z is right when he says that not watching the show on the network costs the network. But, not watching the commercials do not cost the network anything. They have already been paid to air the commercial.

    I agree with SkittlePoker. The networks need to tap sources such as www.btefnet.net and use the seeds/leeches numbers to increase their rating points. Now I'm not that sure of how it works but I do believe that ratings are only taken from the original air date. Repeats don't count. Correct me if I'm wrong anybody.
  • BBC ZBBC Z
    The networks need to tap sources such as www.btefnet.net and use the seeds/leeches numbers to increase their rating points.

    How many of those seeded files include commercials? No advertiser is going to pay more to show an ad that is stripped out of the file.
  • AstroboyAstroboy
    BBC Z wrote:
    How many of those seeded files include commercials? No advertiser is going to pay more to show an ad that is stripped out of the file.

    Very true. Point taken.
  • IronIron
    Advertisers adjusted rates they paid for tv ads when they figured out that people were taping shows on vcr's and cutting out or fast forwarding through commercials. It's the same thing. The government chose not to take any action to prevent P2P dl'ing in Canada, nor was the public really behind protecting intellectual property rights for musicians. With that in mind, it's hard to see why tv shows should be treated any differently.
  • SkittlePokerSkittlePoker
    BBC Z wrote:
    How many of those seeded files include commercials? No advertiser is going to pay more to show an ad that is stripped out of the file.
    Iron wrote:
    Advertisers adjusted rates they paid for tv ads when they figured out that people were taping shows on vcr's and cutting out or fast forwarding through commercials. It's the same thing.

    Perhaps the networks need to explore other forms of advertising. Most arguements I hear/read center around the way things are done currently. Well, the world is moving forward, perhaps today's business models, with regard to entertainment/tv shows, need to be reviewed in order to stay in step with change.
  • SkittlePokerSkittlePoker
    Iron wrote:
    The government chose not to take any action to prevent P2P dl'ing in Canada

    I don't see how they could. Why would they? If I use a P2P program to get a file is it assumed that I am getting something I shouldn't? If I get in a car is it assumed that I will be driving too fast or in places I shouldn't?
    Iron wrote:
    nor was the public really behind protecting intellectual property rights for musicians.

    I can't disagree and to an extent I can't blame them.
    Iron wrote:
    With that in mind, it's hard to see why tv shows should be treated any differently.

    Treated differently? Why not lead the charge and provide content in different ways? For a long time music was downloaded because there was no other option that people had to get the music they liked (particular songs, etc.) without paying for an entire cd/album. Now there are services that alot of people use to get the music they want. Why not do something with regard to tv shows?

    I just think that new ideas need to be brought forth that allows people to see/hear what they want and allow the "broadcasters"/"artists" get paid a fair wage for them. Constantly falling back on a "this is how we do it and we will not change" attitude or punishing people in an over the top manner only makes the problem worse.
  • IronIron
    As far as your last point about offering other alternatives that see that the content providers get paid... that's fine and dandy, but the new customer driven mediums offer what the customer wants and my point was that no one cares what the content provider wants. As I was saying, the public doesn't care because they are getting what they want, and as you have said "I can't disagree and to an extent I can't blame them."

    The customer doesn't want to pay, doesn't want ads, and now often has the knowledge to go about getting content on that basis. You can't make the customer pay... or at least no one is willing to legislate alternative ways that would (surprise surprise) require that the end user contribute to the content in any way. That's all I'm saying. It's a moot point. Times have changed. It was decided in the music industry cases. You don't have to pay, it's not illegal, and therefore it's hard to see why you should feel bad about it.

    I never said anything that was against things changing or saying they should crack down on people. I welcome the new technologies.
Sign In or Register to comment.
HomeDiscussionsToggle Dark Mode