Torrents - do we even need TV any more?

[Mercutio]

Since I have a rare day at my desk I am going to start new topics on SF!

Moving into an apartment has taught me something I did not know: I like a couple of TV shows enough that I want to watch them every week.
It taught me something else: I hate Comcast with the kind of driving, permanent fury I generally reserve for child molesters and christian evangelicals.

For google and posterity I'll note it only took two phone calls and about fifteen minute to go from utter neutrality - perhaps even a mildly favorable disposition on the subject of comcast - to seething rage and a desire to commit unspeakable, physical violence.

Outside of that digression: I like just a couple of things on TV enough to actually watch them. I have purchased special AV hardware, dedicated computers and massive storage space, all with the idea of watching TV on my own schedule and without commercial interruption.

The cheapest cable package I can get which includes HBO, which airs "Deadwood", "Six Feet Under", "Carnivale" and "The Sopranos", is $70 a month. $840 a year. All that for, at best 36 hours of HBO programming in a year, or $23 per episode of the shows I want to watch... and that assumes that each series has a season in a given year (The Sopranos seems to be on a new season per 18 months schedule).
OK, I do watch more than that: I watch "The Shield" on fx, a basic cable channel (basic cable in this case being $40 a month), and sometimes I flip the TV on while I'm cleaning or working on a PC.
I can wait for the DVDs, yes, but support for DVDs isn't going to assure that new episodes of the things I like are going to be produced. The DVDs are after the fact. There are only a couple of cases where the popularity of a DVD set has resulted in new production of a cancelled TV Show ("Family Guy" and the continuation of "Firefly" as the movie "Serenity"). Doesn't seem like a good bet.

Fast forward to about 20 minutes ago: All my AV gear is sitting in a big pile in the middle of my apartment, where there is also no cable, no satellite and no antenna. I want to watch "The Shield" this evening, and I missed it last night.

So I hit a torrent site, where I downloaded last night's episode (349MB of xvid sampled from an HD capture) in 8 minutes. No commercials and video quality that is actually FAR better than what I was getting from my satellite system.

The thing is... this is outrageous. Not that I can go and download whatever the hell I want. We've known about that for a long time. The outrageous thing is that I'm getting something that's better quality than the legitimate service I was paying $1500 a year for, for free, with nearly zero effort on my part, and at the speed of instant gratification. $1500 will buy a decent used car!

Given the possibilities suggested by this, what the hell are we paying all that money for? Comcast can't even give me the channels I want. $900 a year and I can't choose what channels I get? What is being delivered by the cable and satellite companies that's worth all that money?

 

[Santilli]

Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly...

No choices. It's sort of like saying we have a free market with 3-4 gas companies, or Enron out there.

For instance I can't get Satellite in my apartment, and, I can't pull channels free in this area. Only choice is cable, or no TV.

I choose no TV. I miss basketball, in particular at this time of the year, but, I'd rather work with kids, or my own game, rather then sit in front of the TV watching the NBA, which, come to think of it, when Kobe and Shaq played made me sick, since the star preference destroyed the game, and my respect for Shaq.

You are right, and, I'll take the car. You might check on copy write laws, and how you downloaded the stuff. I guess it's an 'educational' exemption, as long as the company isn't making money on it, but, whoever is hosting much be making something in sponsor money, so you are on shaky ground...

I like the new deal around here for movies. About 2 bucks a DVD, for 4 shows, and, I can watch without commericials.


Another issue is the quality of visual reproduction on a TV screen.

Last night I was watching Wimbeldon, the movie, on my 19 inch sony monitor, pull that cost 85 bucks, from bankruptcy, using PowerDVD, and the ATI 800XL. I was mesmerized by how clear and brilliant the image was, and the sound was incredible as well, not to mention I can watch the show, burn a CD etc.

Dot Pitch wise, I can't get close to a monitor buying a TV screen, and, yesterday I was looking at a cheap, 15" TFT, for 200 bucks, that was just brilliant in color reproduction.

Why would you want to buy anything but something capable of reproducing that kind of brilliant image? Why would you pay 1500 bucks a year for such a crappy signal, in the first place?

I don't.

The only rational answer to your question is:
MONOPOLY :excl:

S

 

[iGary]

Video-on-demand has been around for a while, but what people really want is access to a virtually unlimited television and movie "database" that will allow them to look at nearly anything that the copyright owners will allow, such as a particular episode of The Untouchables from 1959 or maybe a performance of the Metropolitan Opera that was videotaped in 1982, etc.

Unfortunately, the infrastructure is not here yet to support a gazillion people viewing different video material simultaneously over a single network. For starters, what's needed is optical fibre to each home that's running a least 10 Gb/s Ethernet, along larger trunk lines and backbones upstream supported by efficient protocols that deliver not only the aforementioned video services, but voice, data, and facsimile services. And, this should be an international standard -- no frickin' antediluvian NTSC vs. PAL vs SECAM insanity. We want it all to run on top of IPV6 and Ethernet signaling.

 

[timwhit]

I was having this same conversation with a friend the other day? Why don't the networks allow for streaming or downloads of their shows for a cost? HBO could make a fortune doing this.

I just get everything on Bittorrent at over 200K/s.

 

[i]

I've been debating whether or not to post this. I should probably patent the idea. :wink:

You know how Slashdot routinely has questions posted (either as entire articles, or just coincidentally within other IT-related articles) asking what sort of payment - if any - people ask for when they fix computers for family and friends? Well, I thought of something a while ago that is kind of applicable as an answer to that question. As I haven't implemented it yet, perhaps some people here can offer their thoughts about A) how legal it is, and B) how feasible it is.

I don't have cable TV. I don't want it. It costs way too much for a load of garbage channels that I'll never watch. I turn on my TV about once every 3 or 4 months, and will watch something off PBS, or the awesome MHz Networks station. Anyway, it's all broadcast channels, picked up via this building's central roof antenna. The only other time I will use the TV is if I've picked up a DVD.

All that said, there are a few occasions when I wish I could catch a show that's only available if you have cable. The only real option I have in those situations is to ask someone to tape the show for me. Which never happens, because it's just a TV show, and I'm not going to inconvenience someone over something so unimportant.

But I do have two good friends who have cable TV. And these friends happen to be the ones that I have fixed a number of computer problems for over the years, and the same friends I installed a small home network for last year. They've got an area in their laundry room dedicated for a small router, firewall, and all the phone/video/network junctions. There's space for a computer, and I happen to have a spare one. With a TV tuner capture card. See where this is going?

As payment for all the work I've done for them, I asked them if I could install a headless computer in their laundry room and have it connected to their cable TV. They had no problem with that at all. It doesn't impact them in any way (other than a tiny increase in electrical usage).

Once that's done, I plan on arranging some secure way (most likely with a DMZ, an additional firewall, and VNC) to control that computer from my home. Then, with MythTV installed on it, I can have it record the occasional show for me. And then overnight at 2am when no one at my friend's home is using the network, have it automatically start transferring the recorded content to my home.

Technically feasible? I think so. I don't know what the network transfers will be like though, and I don't know yet exactly how best to set up secure operation. Anyone have some suggestions? I could really use some advice.

Legal? I think so. This is no different than asking my friends to tape a show for me with their antique VCR, and then picking up the tape the next morning. Whatever I record using this method is NOT going to be shared with anyone else, so this is an entirely private setup. I can't see how any cable company could complain about this.

So basically, this is a gift - or rather payment for my computer repair services - that keeps on giving.

Any thoughts?

 

[cquinn]

Well, somebody still has to have those cable/sattelite feeds, or there
wouldn't be anyone around to convert the show into XVid to put online.

And many of us are in a position to watch more TV, or have others
in the family who watch more TV that even what bittorrent provides.
(At least I hope shows like Judge Judy and Divorce court are not
showing up on BT).

I also get too much enjoyment out of my hacked DirecTivo to give
it up so easily.

i,

Technically feasible? I think so. I don't know what the network transfers will be like though

Probably,

Legal? I think so.

Legal? No.

This is no different than asking my friends to tape a show for me with their antique VCR, and then picking up the tape the next morning.

Which technically is also not legal, but no-one bothers with VHS taping
for various reasons. The problem here is your friend is not taping the
show for you; and they do not have permission to transfer service
from the cable company or rebroadcast rights from the network for
those shows.

And yes, I suppose BT is in a similar position, but the difference is the
attitude the networks have towards it compared to the RIAA and MPAA.
The know that BT users are only a fraction of the TV viewers out there;
and if a show becomes popular enough on BT to be noticed, then it will
also be a strong draw for the couch potatoes that will pay those cable
fees and keep those advertisers supported.





[/b]

 

[i]

Legal? No.

This is no different than asking my friends to tape a show for me with their antique VCR, and then picking up the tape the next morning.

Which technically is also not legal, but no-one bothers with VHS taping
for various reasons. The problem here is your friend is not taping the
show for you; and they do not have permission to transfer service
from the cable company or rebroadcast rights from the network for
those shows.

So when I go over to their home in person and watch TV with them, I'm breaking the law because I'm not the one footing the cable bill? I don't understand. I thought time-shifting was legal. If so, what is the difference between watching something at their house, or watching it the next day having had it recorded?

 

[Will Rickards]

Tivo Rules. I hate live TV.
Cable costs way too much.
Yes I have disrespect for Comcast, which is why I went with RCN cable. Fortunately in my area there is a choice in cable providers but not in cable prices. Still costs nearly $90/month for cable (no digital converter box) and cable internet.

Anyway I don't think you need a choice of every TV show ever. In reality a demand driven system with a default cache of two weeks would probably be plenty. That is items that get watched a lot would be cached longer than two weeks but just about all the shows would be for two weeks.

I don't think bandwidth would be a concern either. Cable to the home probably has enough bandwidth especially with caching systems in place for popular feeds.

But somebody has to pay the price for the channels initially.

 

[Bookmage]

I'm just a slightly above average college kid in a small apartment. The apartment complex has a contract with one company for cable TV, phone, and Internet service. They charge something decent and offer crappy service. The "high speed" ethernet will crawl to sub modem speeds at times before completely dropping out. The DNS servers are shoddy and don't always respond. And the cable TV... well its cable TV. we get 50 some odd channels and use less than a dozen on a regular basis. I may tune in on my TV card to catch the news or weather or watch some special, but I have gone to grabbing my TV eps via other means. I download TV shows so I can watch What I want, When I went, on What I want, ie LCD monitor or Projector. I would gladly give up cable TV access for Tivo like capabilities that give me, the user, access to the TV shows I want to watch. I can't always watch the shows I want, when the networks air them, and when I do want to watch them, they've got other useless stuff on.
I would not mind paying a reasonable fee to download the shows I want and be able to store them on some form of media, even if its regulated to some degree. In the culture of today, I want my products delivered to me on my time when I ask for it. I want my music delivered to me when I ask for it and I want my fast food custom tailored to my tastes. If I feel like watching last weeks episode of the Simpsons at 3AM, I should be able to.
However, I don't see video on demand becoming a reality until every house has some form of high speed Internet. The networks need to be able to deliver video almost instantaneously at any hour of the day. I almost envision a Steam like delivery system but for TV shows. I see users being able to login and have access to a database of TV shows and episodes. I'll be able to pick any episode of any TV show I want and download or stream video straight to my computer/display unit that supports High Def and has surround sound. High Quality Content on Demand.
That is what torrents bring. They bring high quality content when you want them. What more could a customer ask for?

"Do not yourself, what others can do better and more efficient than you."

 

[LiamC]

This ides stream seems to be cropping up everywhere

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050331.html

(and others either side of that weeks Pulpit)

 

[Fushigi]

Legal? No.

This is no different than asking my friends to tape a show for me with their antique VCR, and then picking up the tape the next morning.

Which technically is also not legal, but no-one bothers with VHS taping
for various reasons. The problem here is your friend is not taping the
show for you; and they do not have permission to transfer service
from the cable company or rebroadcast rights from the network for
those shows.

So when I go over to their home in person and watch TV with them, I'm breaking the law because I'm not the one footing the cable bill? I don't understand. I thought time-shifting was legal. If so, what is the difference between watching something at their house, or watching it the next day having had it recorded?

No, the problem with your proposal is twofold:
1. The programs are not being taped to time-shift; they are being taped for redistribution outside the domain of the person(s) paying for the service.
2. This is occuring as payment for services rendered. That makes it piracy.

Cable and satellite viewing is contracted (subscribers do sign contracts, you know) to take place solely in the establishment where the service is installed. Timeshifting is allowed for the benefit of the subscriber only. What you are doing is the legal equivalent of 'stealing cable'; i.e. tapping in to their line to run an extension to your residence. You're doing it via PC & Internet vs. coax or VCR, but the net effect is the same.

This might (I'm not sure on this point) be accepted legally if the channels recorded were ones that are generally available to you OTA.

BT, eMule, the original Napster, and other P2P networks and binary newsgroups are essentially the same. They are not legal unless the copyright owner agrees to this form of redistribution.

BTW, I don't feel this sort of thing is necessarily wrong; it can be a legit way for groups to publish content. The problem is that most of the users of such systems aren't using it legally. Part of this is the casual attitude about copyright that seems to have come about over the past 25-30 years, part of it is the rebellious nature of youth (any many adults), but the most problematic part is that the rights holders haven't embraced broadband and addressed how to achieve their revenue targets in the broadband age.

 

[sechs]

Tivo Rules.

Who needs Tivo when you have the Internet?

 

[Mercutio]

OK, raise your hand if you give shit about whether torrents are legal means of distribution.

 

[Fushigi]

Whether or not one chooses to acquire cable/satellite content without paying for it is an ethics question that each person has to answer themselves. This is especially true when the risk of having laws enforced is minimal.

Honestly, I'd be a hypocrite if I raised my hand. I've got some illegally acquired materials. I used to have more, but some have since been 'made legal' by replacing them with commercial releases. So I am satisfying my personal ethics in that the content producers are making their deserved profit from me when they provide me with content in a format I can purchase. For the remaining titles, until such a time as the content becomes available I don't have an ethical issue with keeping my 'illegal' materials.

 

[i]

OK, raise your hand if you give shit about whether torrents are legal means of distribution.

I care.

And I'll try to explain why, because I do have a personal reason, i.e. a reason that governs my behaviour. Not yours. It has absolutely no bearing on anyone else. So I am not going to get into an argument with anyone ... this is just my perspective. People tell me I'm crazy all the time, so please feel free to do the same and ignore me. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I'm a lunatic.

I don't have any illegal material anywhere in my home. Not on any of my computers, and not anywhere else. I have never downloaded an illegal MP3, film, TV program, or software package in my life. I have no plans to start either. In my view, what's the point? If the music (or whatever) really mattered to me, I'd be willing to put some effort into acquiring a legitimate copy. Duh!

If classical music mattered to me at all (which it does), I'd listen to a classical radio station a lot (which I do, WGMS), and accept that my tolerance of the commericials is the effort I expend to show that I value the programming they offer. I'd also pay to go to the Kennedy Center to catch a performance as often as I could (which I do). Now really, if Fear Factor mattered to me at all, I wouldn't be sitting at home watching it, I'd go out and try to become a contestant. But failing that, I'd put up with the commercials and watch it on TV.

Which brings me back to my plans for a private recording system. If there's any question about the legality I'm not going to bother. It would have been nice to have gained access to the occasional show when an hour of entertainment is something I could appreciate, but really, TV isn't that important to me. If there's a TV series or a movie I value, then I'll just buy a copy someday. Not out yet? I'll wait ... I'm not going to sit on the edge of my seat for months or years waiting desperately to see if it's appeared on video yet or not. It doesn't have that much value.

Anyway, the real gain would have come in learning enough to have put the whole system together. But without it resulting in a legal setup, it's just not worth the hassle. I'd have wound up with something I couldn't justify using.

With a perspective like this you'd think I'd be the entertainment industry's favorite customer, but really I'm not. I'm probably their worst - because I don't let their content excite me to the point that I can't objectively view the value of their product ... which 99 times out of 100 is zero. This seems to be unlike so many others who download masses of crap without thinking about why they're doing so. They don't need that stuff. 99% of it is either utter trash or utterly unimportant. And the remaining 1% they could have picked up legally if they'd expended any effort whatsoever.

But far more importantly than that, people who download illegal content are just diluting the value of whatever they claimed they appreciated. Honestly, if everyone pooped gold, do you think gold would have any value? For me, part of the value of something I really want is in the fact that it takes some real effort to gain it. If I just sit there and click a few buttons, leave my computer running for a while, and then return to find a complete collection of music by Bach, in my view I've just made his work about as valuable as a roll of toilet paper stolen from work.

Now how the hell could I do that to Bach and expect my conscience to let me get any sleep ever again?

Seriously though, people who engage in piracy remind me of those people who stack their shelves with bogus, self-engraved trophies. They didn't earn them. If any of that crap really mattered to them, they would have found a legitimate way of earning it all. So why the hell do they have any of it? I just find it baffling.

 

[Will Rickards]

Raises Hand.

I don't agree with circumventing through illegal means.

However, I also think that we pay too much for our shows. Once to the cable company and then again by dealing with commercials. And we are also subsidizing the shows we don't watch.

And Tivo rules because it is an easy legal way of taping the shows you want to watch and watching TV on your schedule.

 

[Santilli]

Wonder what a judge would think? Good argument is you are acting legally, since their companies actions are illegal as well.

Not going to fly. Can't remember where, but this argument never does.

Problem is, anti-trust laws require a weird proof. I suspect price fixing by cable companies is in place, but, the real problem is intellectual property laws, and, this, I suspect, is the reason for the high cost of cable.
All those actors, directors, etc. want their percentage of re-runs, and new stuff, and they will sue, because it's a major source of income, and, lack of it, is major harm to them.

S

 

[Bookmage]

But far more importantly than that, people who download illegal content are just diluting the value of whatever they claimed they appreciated. Honestly, if everyone pooped gold, do you think gold would have any value? For me, part of the value of something I really want is in the fact that it takes some real effort to gain it. If I just sit there and click a few buttons, leave my computer running for a while, and then return to find a complete collection of music by Bach, in my view I've just made his work about as valuable as a roll of toilet paper stolen from work.

Now how the hell could I do that to Bach and expect my conscience to let me get any sleep ever again?

Seriously though, people who engage in piracy remind me of those people who stack their shelves with bogus, self-engraved trophies. They didn't earn them. If any of that crap really mattered to them, they would have found a legitimate way of earning it all. So why the hell do they have any of it? I just find it baffling.

The average cable TV bill around here runs around 50$. Throw in whatever extra TV show or sports package and the cost shoots up even more. Throw in Cable Internet and it easily tops over $100. That is $50+ of your hard earned cash going into entertainment, which they give you in abundance. They give you dozens of channels and hundreds of hours of it as part of that cost. I grab the remote and press a few buttons and I am watching the news, or the Discovery Channel or the Food Network. If I'm lucky, I'll be in time to watch a show that I like on one of the over the air networks, ie Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. They air their big name shows during prime time in the evenings. Most of the time I am not available to watch these shows at that time. When I do have time after midnight or 2am, they are showing infomercials or reruns I don't want to watch. If I pay my hard earned monthly fee to watch the TV shows I want to watch, why do I have to watch it on someone else's time schedule? I pay good money to have the content delivered to my house, and if it arrives at an inconvenient time, I am penalized for it?

So I head on-line and within a day or two, I can grab all the missing episodes and in fact, the entire season. I can watch them in better resolution on my LCD or projector. Yes I have a HDTV Sony LCD that has a built in HDTV receiver and I can watch some of the local TV channels in HDTV. It's great and I can't wait for more channels to go HD. I paid good money for my HDTV and good money for my Cable service with HD. So why can't I watch it at any hour of the day?

I should not have to run through hoops or jump over pits of fire to watch something I pay for.

If I really like the show, then I'll buy the DVD and watch that cause I support it. This is why I have Dark Angel, all of Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy and more on my shelve. However, I also have DVDRips of them on my storage server for two reasons. One is convenience and the other is for backup. I LOVE having the physical DVD with the case and artwork and special notes by Matt Groening. I LOVE being able to glance at my shelf and see the Season numbers increase from 1-5 (Season 5 is the latest Simpsons one out). I HATE having to swap DVDs and I hate getting fingerprints on the DVDs. I LOVE being able to queue up a dozen episodes of something and then just letting them randomly play in the background on my LCD.

This is why I like Tivo and its concept. I would pay for TV/Movie on demand. I want a service where I can select from an archive of every Simpson show ever made and queue up my favorite shows. I want to be able to catch last night's Football game at 3AM or watch what Emeril made two weeks ago. I want to be able to hear every strum of Vanessa Mae's violin live in concert with surround sound or feel the rumble of the bass from whoever's playing the bass guitar. No commercials would be nice, but I would settle for them before or after a show, maybe one in the middle.

This is what the Internet allows me to do. It gives me the freedom of choice to watch what I want, when I want. Is that so wrong?

PS. classical music is cheap! I can buy tons of it for cheap at any retail store. So I've never bothered to pirate it and at this point in time, I've got overlap too. And what do you think about music that is released in another country, that is not available in your country? IE, trance/techno/dance is more popular in Europe and many albums do not make it to the US. The only options are to import it at really high costs, or move there? I'm not trying to use this as an excuse to pirate music, just pondering a scenario that I know exists.

PSS. This just occurred to me.

If I just sit there and click a few buttons, leave my computer running for a while, and then return to find a complete collection of music by Bach, in my view I've just made his work about as valuable as a roll of toilet paper stolen from work.

I can sit there, click a few buttons, key in 16 numbers, leave my computer running and have an entire album there. All perfectly legit via some pay service. Or do the same motions, and have the entire collection of Bach arrive on my doorstep the next day. That didn't take too much effort and I still value it the same. Is that really work? Although I do agree, I value something more after I've worked for it. But isn't it the same if I work for my money, and pay with my hard earned money?

 

[i]

I can sit there, click a few buttons, key in 16 numbers, leave my computer running and have an entire album there. All perfectly legit via some pay service. Or do the same motions, and have the entire collection of Bach arrive on my doorstep the next day. That didn't take too much effort and I still value it the same. Is that really work?

You did work to gain the money that you used to buy the music online, right? That's all that money is about - a method for shuffling effort around in a convenient, minted form. If you handed over money for that item, then you handed over effort.

Although I do agree, I value something more after I've worked for it. But isn't it the same if I work for my money, and pay with my hard earned money?[/quote]

Yes, it is the same. (I think you and I are pretty much on the same page.)