Combating copyright infringement

[Jill_Ion]

Considering how the episodes are released by groups like LOL, NoTV and XOR AFTER they air in the united states, why would anyone in the states wait an extra hour to download them rather than watching them when they air?

The people who download Stargate episodes are people in other countries who DON'T have access to the SciFi channel.

[mod snip]

I wait an extra hour to download the eps (legally from iTunes) because I don't have the SciFi Channel. That may change some time this year, but for SG-1's entire run and the first 3 seasons of SGA, I was watching them in syndication, which is a year behind the SciFi season.

There should be a place online where you can pay to watch/download each episode (individually, although mabye there'd be a discount for buying multiple episodes at once).

iTunes for people in the US. One can buy the eps individually or get a "season pass" to get the entire season. The eps usually show up on iTunes a couple of hours after the show first airs on SciFi.

Thing is when you download an episode right after it's aired it is a recording from tv. I'm not even sure that breaks copyright therefore seeing as it's just like someone lending a video to a friend...........well sort of...........point is that morally it's on par. It's when people start making pirate dvds and selling them that the copyright infringement starts.

Actually, copyright infringement starts (in the US) the moment one copies a show they don't own or copies a show they own for purposes other than archiving. (A bit simplified, but there's lots of websites out there with the full details.)

But as others have said, the gov't and production companies aren't going to get involved if you're lending a copy to a friend or taping a show to watch later via DVR. It's the pirates, for sure, and those who extensively share their music/video catalogs that they'll go after.

CD sales have plummeted over the past couple of years, due to legal and illegal downloads. The companies will make their money from the legal downloads, but they make nothing from illegal downloads. I'm not so worried about the Sonys or MGMs of the world, but a little, teeny bit of the money the companies make actually gets filtered down to the artist. I want them to make everything they can.

Also, I personally want to own the CD for certain bands or DVDs for certain shows because I want to have the physical disc in my possession. I also like the little extras that come with DVDs.

[Durgia]

The vast majority of TV downloads come from outside the USA. Some shows are 3 years behind in these countries.

Within the USA I believe (although I have no facts to back up my belief) that the majority of downloaders are people such as Uni students who cannot afford or do not have access to the content by any other means.

Personally I see nothing wrong with it in this case. Mp3's are a whole other ball game, you don't see cell phones capable of carrying 1000 episodes of illegal tv.

The ratings are more effected by PVR/DVR then anything else. Stargate is one of the most heavily PVR'd tv shows. There is nothing illegal about this.

As for sharing goes, I fail to see the difference between a) Joe(who has Scifi) inviting 3 friends over (that do not) to watch Stargate on Fridays and b) Jon (who has Scifi) sends a copy to his friends over the computer. (maybe Jon's couch is too small)

[garhkal]

oh, but how are you going to tell? monitor peoples internet logs? unless they've got a court order to do so, that would be an invasion of piracy (same as tapping a phone for example)..

Control the ISPs and tell them to lock out those countries (which usually have specific IP groupings for the area)..

Within the USA I believe (although I have no facts to back up my belief) that the majority of downloaders are people such as Uni students who cannot afford or do not have access to the content by any other means.

So. Just cause they don't have the money for it, does not give them a reaosn to basically be stealing it.

As for sharing goes, I fail to see the difference between a) Joe(who has Scifi) inviting 3 friends over (that do not) to watch Stargate on Fridays and b) Jon (who has Scifi) sends a copy to his friends over the computer. (maybe Jon's couch is too small)
Reply With Quote

The difference there, is in situation 1, those friends are not getting a copy themselves, while in situation 2, they are getting their own copy which can be shared out yet again and so on..

[Mefusta]

So. Just cause they don't have the money for it, does not give them a reaosn to basically be stealing it.

But let's all remember that we can't call it "stealing". We're talking about infinitely reproducible packets of information, not a tangible object here. When you download a song from the internet, you're not physically depriving anybody of anything. When you choose to download a song you desire rather than going out and buying it, you're only depriving the source of your own money. I'd like to think we actually own the money in our pockets, so how can we be stealing something that is inherently already ours?

Of course, then we get onto the issue that you might never intend to buy the song in the first place if you can't download it, which means you're literally depriving the source of nothing. For example: I downloaded 'Midway' last week. I feel no shame in doing so, as I would have otherwise been looking at a wait of over a year before it'd be aired in Australia. Considering that I have no plans whatsoever to ever buy the DVD set, and neither MGM nor Sci-Fi has taken a loss from my missing the airing on television in the US, where is the theft? In what way have I, or the thousands like me, had any negative affect on Stargate? Heck, by downloading the episode and raving to my friends about how awesome the episode was, I may have unwittingly convinced several of them to ultimately buy the Atlantis Season 4 DVD set when it comes out, thereby netting MGM and Sci-Fi a profit where there would otherwise be nothing. How could this be considered damaging to Stargate!

That's why it's called "copyright infringement" instead of outright theft, because legally there is no theft involved. The big guys are only calling this whole issue theft because it's a nice way to win over the fence-sitters and ill-informed to their side of the argument. When you get right down to it, it's a minor issue that gets blown completely out of proportion by groups like the MPAA and (especially) RIAA, who feel it threatens their bottom line far more than their own crimes of charging far too much for alarmingly mediocre music and expecting the consumer to choke it down without complaint.

[Jill_Ion]

But let's all remember that we can't call it "stealing". We're talking about infinitely reproducible packets of information, not a tangible object here. When you download a song from the internet, you're not physically depriving anybody of anything. When you choose to download a song you desire rather than going out and buying it, you're only depriving the source of your own money. I'd like to think we actually own the money in our pockets, so how can we be stealing something that is inherently already ours?

So if something is digitized, it doesn't really exist? I disagree. There's a whole area of the law called intellectual property. A photographer can take a digital photo, and the file is his property. He has all of the rights associated with that image, whether it's ever printed or not.

When one goes out and downloads songs for free rather than paying for them, he/she is depriving the musicians of their rightful income. They, ultimately, are "the source" that is being deprived.

[Mefusta]

When one goes out and downloads songs for free rather than paying for them, he/she is depriving the musicians of their rightful income. They, ultimately, are "the source" that is being deprived.

But what if the nefarious internet pirate never intended to purchase the song through normal channels? What he or she had no interest in acquiring the song, but decided to download it on a lark? If there was no intention to buy, then you can't argue that the money in their pocket would have ever found its way to the song artist (well, let's be realistic, the song distributor). Therefore, no loss has been made, only a gain on the side of the internet-savvy individual.

Truly, that is the real crime here, according to big business. People getting things without men in suits cutting a profit.

[Jill_Ion]

But what if the nefarious internet pirate never intended to purchase the song through normal channels? What he or she had no interest in acquiring the song, but decided to download it on a lark? If there was no intention to buy, then you can't argue that the money in their pocket would have ever found its way to the song artist (well, let's be realistic, the song distributor). Therefore, no loss has been made, only a gain on the side of the internet-savvy individual.

Truly, that is the real crime here, according to big business. People getting things without men in suits cutting a profit.

Well, I get what you're saying. I wasn't calling anyone "nefarious," BTW. If they had no intention of purchasing the song, then why would they download it on a lark? If it isn't worth spending hard-earned money on, then it shouldn't have any value or be worth their time, right? I just don't see the "I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so it's OK for me to take it" argument as valid.

I don't have SciFi. I had to watch the series a year behind in syndication because I wasn't willing to pay for that level of cable. Was I suffering? I guess maybe a little, but not enough to spend the money to fix the situation. This year I decided to buy the season pass on iTunes. I didn't downloaded an unauthorized (= illegal) copy of SG from the Net because if I'm not willing to pay for cable, then I shouldn't watch it.

Before I get my butt jumped, I have to say I do get the "If it's free, it's for me!" concept. I went to college. I just have decided that doing the right thing is more important than crappy food, crappy promo items, and crappy resolution of illegal downloads (metaphorically, if there are good res. versions out there).

The whole Big Business = Bad thing is, for me, a subject for another topic. And still the artist gets screwed when we take art without paying for it.

[jenks]

If something's worth keeping then it's worth buying. I download stuff all the time but it all either gets bought or deleted.

[Mefusta]

Well, I get what you're saying. I wasn't calling anyone "nefarious," BTW. If they had no intention of purchasing the song, then why would they download it on a lark? If it isn't worth spending hard-earned money on, then it shouldn't have any value or be worth their time, right? I just don't see the "I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so it's OK for me to take it" argument as valid.

Wasn't trying to take a stab at you with the 'nefarious' crack, I just never get to use that word as often as i'd like.

I totally get where you're coming from, and from a moral perspective you're completely right. Downloading songs certainly isn't 'right', because you're getting something for free that the artist (probably) put a lot of effort into. It's not a fair exchange. However, I was merely arguing from an entirely logic-based point of view, since it's so easy for this whole issue to get bogged down with right and wrong. Logically, I posit that no loss equals no crime.

I don't have SciFi. I had to watch the series a year behind in syndication because I wasn't willing to pay for that level of cable. Was I suffering? I guess maybe a little, but not enough to spend the money to fix the situation. This year I decided to buy the season pass on iTunes. I didn't downloaded an unauthorized (= illegal) copy of SG from the Net because if I'm not willing to pay for cable, then I shouldn't watch it.

Before I get my butt jumped, I have to say I do get the "If it's free, it's for me!" concept. I went to college. I just have decided that doing the right thing is more important than crappy food, crappy promo items, and crappy resolution of illegal downloads (metaphorically, if there are good res. versions out there).

A year!? Well, you're a heck of a lot stronger willed than I.

For me, I have absolutely no options. Living in Australia, I can't watch the first run or even get access to iTunes or Amazon.com distribution. The only way for me to watch Stargate is on the shoddy network that displays it, and they just aired 'No Man's Land' last night! I see unauthorized online distribution as the only real way for me to watch the show spoiler-free, and unless someone can actually prove that my downloading the show hurts the show, I don't see anything wrong with it at all. Oh, and you really would be surprised at the resolution of uploaded versions. Gone are the days of having to squint through heavily pixellated, tinny-sounding rips; 'Trio' looked better than most of the stuff I watch on TV!

The whole Big Business = Bad thing is, for me, a subject for another topic. And still the artist gets screwed when we take art without paying for it.

Yeah, I guess you're right. But I hold true to my assessment that artists are getting screwed by big business a heck of a lot harder than they are by some teenager with an internet connection.

[Buck32]

How can we do it? I've seen countless episodes online (I know it's bad... but I really don't want to wait for the next showing of the episode, especially if that's a few months off) and I think that is the reason that (or at least a contributing factor of) SG-1 being cancelled (fine, formatted differently). I don't want to see the same thing happen to SGA, and I definitely don't want Continuum to be leaked, and if it is, I want it to be taken down asap.

How can I report these links as copyright infringements? The websites that host the links to the infringements often have a "report a copyright violation" submission form, but I've tried using them, and most don't work.

If I find a way, or someone posts one here, will you help me cleanse the internet of these unauthorized Stargate postings?

Who are you? the FBI ? who cares if episodes are leaked, i download episodes of SGA every week, if i left it up to Tv stations here in Australia, i'd still be watching season 3!!!

So i love that eps are available to download so i can keep watching, i still buy the box sets when they come out anyway, although i'll think long and hard about buying season 4.

[rlr149]

Control the ISPs and tell them to lock out those countries (which usually have specific IP groupings for the area)..

erm, isn't that against the whole idea of the 'internet'

When one goes out and downloads songs for free rather than paying for them, he/she is depriving the musicians of their rightful income. They, ultimately, are "the source" that is being deprived.

yet the artists used to say it was all about the 'music', which to me means 'i'd do it for free, just cos i love it', if you can't buy food then fair enough, but i seriously doubt a lot of artists(and i use the term loosely) are in that position. and if they are then they could get a proper job instead, like the majority of the world has to

[Mefusta]

yet the artists used to say it was all about the 'music', which to me means 'i'd do it for free, just cos i love it', if you can't buy food then fair enough, but i seriously doubt a lot of artists(and i use the term loosely) are in that position. and if they are then they could get a proper job instead, like the majority of the world has to

Another good point. Most of the music out there (and I use the term 'music' loosely) that you can easily find online to download comes from the big-name artists that are a heck of a lot better off than 95% of their listeners. It's a little hard to swallow the 'starving artist' argument when ordinary middle- and lower-class people are getting dragged to court for downloading Britney Spears' latest trainwreck.

[jenks]

erm, isn't that against the whole idea of the 'internet'



yet the artists used to say it was all about the 'music', which to me means 'i'd do it for free, just cos i love it', if you can't buy food then fair enough, but i seriously doubt a lot of artists(and i use the term loosely) are in that position. and if they are then they could get a proper job instead, like the majority of the world has to

Actually, a hell of a lot of them are. Not the ones you see on TV obviously, but they only make a minute percentage of the music that's out there anyway.

[rlr149]

Actually, a hell of a lot of them are. Not the ones you see on TV obviously, but they only make a minute percentage of the music that's out there anyway.

yet the artists used to say it was all about the 'music', which to me means 'i'd do it for free, just cos i love it', if you can't buy food then fair enough, but i seriously doubt a lot of artists(and i use the term loosely) are in that position. and if they are then they could get a proper job instead, like the majority of the world has to

[jenks]

That's wrong on so many levels...