Is it OK to steal “Downton Abbey”?(salon.com)
salon.com
Is it OK to steal “Downton Abbey”?
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/27/is_it_ok_to_steal_downton_abbey/singleton/
71 comments
OK, copyright infringement isn't stealing. It's copyright infringement. And copyright infringement is illegal.
I am sorry that some people are "frustrated" because they cannot see their favorite programs at the same time that people in other parts of the world can see them. But what a remarkably morally shaky ground upon which to break the law! My great-grandfather stole food once; his father died when he was eight, and his mother couldn't support the family. Today, people steal--sorry, copyright infringe--Downton Abbey because they can't wait to find out whether Lady Mary is going to marry Matthew.
I am sorry that some people are "frustrated" because they cannot see their favorite programs at the same time that people in other parts of the world can see them. But what a remarkably morally shaky ground upon which to break the law! My great-grandfather stole food once; his father died when he was eight, and his mother couldn't support the family. Today, people steal--sorry, copyright infringe--Downton Abbey because they can't wait to find out whether Lady Mary is going to marry Matthew.
Lots of people break laws every day. People drink underage, people smoke pot, people speed in their motorcars, people cheat on their taxes, people drive their bicycles on the sidewalk.
Lots of people break laws every day. Why and when they do it is an internal calculus driven by many factors: my need, the damage inflicted of the person I'm harming, my convenience, the likelihood I'm getting caught, the punishment that will be meted out if I get caught.
If you want to curb piracy (eg: stop illegal activity), you need to affect all the parameters. Content creators have done a poor job on many of these fronts. So far, rights holders have almost exclusively tried to criminalize their customers. In my opinion, that's a really stupid way to go.
Lots of people break laws every day. Why and when they do it is an internal calculus driven by many factors: my need, the damage inflicted of the person I'm harming, my convenience, the likelihood I'm getting caught, the punishment that will be meted out if I get caught.
If you want to curb piracy (eg: stop illegal activity), you need to affect all the parameters. Content creators have done a poor job on many of these fronts. So far, rights holders have almost exclusively tried to criminalize their customers. In my opinion, that's a really stupid way to go.
Morality and legality often intersects, but one does not imply the other. In other words, that something is legal or illegal doesn't make it moral or immoral.
It does not follow from your ancestors hardships that downloading a TV show is inherently immoral, any more that is follows it is moral.
What I consider very interesting in the discussion of the morality of downloading TV series in particular is in the comparison with DVRs:
Legal: DVR'ing a free-to-air broadcast TV show and skipping the commercial breaks.
Illegal: Downloading the same TV show, with the commercial breaks edited out.
The only substantial difference in the two scenarios is timing - whether you will be watching a Christmas special at Christmas or in May, two years later (as is more often the case with US shows in Europe).
Further noting that the the fact these TV shows airs on such a long delay reflects the practicality of how the TV show market work, not some particular desire of the copyright holder, what is the moral principle being breached here?
It does not follow from your ancestors hardships that downloading a TV show is inherently immoral, any more that is follows it is moral.
What I consider very interesting in the discussion of the morality of downloading TV series in particular is in the comparison with DVRs:
Legal: DVR'ing a free-to-air broadcast TV show and skipping the commercial breaks.
Illegal: Downloading the same TV show, with the commercial breaks edited out.
The only substantial difference in the two scenarios is timing - whether you will be watching a Christmas special at Christmas or in May, two years later (as is more often the case with US shows in Europe).
Further noting that the the fact these TV shows airs on such a long delay reflects the practicality of how the TV show market work, not some particular desire of the copyright holder, what is the moral principle being breached here?
Just to further underline the divergence between morality and legality, it's worth noting that under current copyright law, it is illegal in the United Kingdom to record (i.e. 'DVR') any television broadcast.
It is also illegal to rip a copy of a CD you own to listen to on a computer or copy to a portable music player...
It is also illegal to rip a copy of a CD you own to listen to on a computer or copy to a portable music player...
In the Netherlands, making a copy of copyrighted material is legal for personal use. There’s a levy on blank media such as DVD-Rs which is shared between copyright holders.
Also illegal: Downloading the same TV show with the commercial breaks intact and not skipping them
Yes, but in the isolated world of this thought experiment, that's more reasonable: Commercials are most often targeted for a specific market, so there is no value in someone watching them thousands of miles away. This is true even for global brands ("They call it a Royale with Cheese").
Legal: recording the OTA broadcast and watching it two hours later without skipping ads
Illegal: Downloading the same TV show with the commercial breaks intact as broadcast by your local affiliate and watching it two hours later without skipping ads
Illegal: Downloading the same TV show with the commercial breaks intact as broadcast by your local affiliate and watching it two hours later without skipping ads
Legal: a friend recording a TV show on a VCR and giving you the tape.
Illegal: a friend recording a TV show to an .avi file and sending you a megaupload link.
Illegal: a friend recording a TV show to an .avi file and sending you a megaupload link.
I think it's a little bit disingenuous of you to admit they're different and then immediately conflate them. :)
I think also that the really widespread nature of this begins to look more like civil disobedience than opportunism. (The difference being that people who act opportunistically hope that no-one else does; people who act in civil disobedience hope that everyone does.) I hope you're not going to make the case that civil disobedience is a non-virtuous act simply because it's illegal?
As a historical note: without illegal copyright infringement in the 1700s, the works of Shakespeare, Milton, and Chaucer would still be under copyright. As a British taxpayer (and thus an involuntary investor in Downton Abbey), I'm fully in favour of people who would otherwise have difficulty seeing it downloading it, even if they have to break a law to do it.
I think also that the really widespread nature of this begins to look more like civil disobedience than opportunism. (The difference being that people who act opportunistically hope that no-one else does; people who act in civil disobedience hope that everyone does.) I hope you're not going to make the case that civil disobedience is a non-virtuous act simply because it's illegal?
As a historical note: without illegal copyright infringement in the 1700s, the works of Shakespeare, Milton, and Chaucer would still be under copyright. As a British taxpayer (and thus an involuntary investor in Downton Abbey), I'm fully in favour of people who would otherwise have difficulty seeing it downloading it, even if they have to break a law to do it.
There's a large grey area between "illegal" and "immoral" though. And the legal system has a long history of playing catchup to changes in public mores, and being dictated by people who don't have the public interest at heart (slavery/segregation, prohibition/legalization, communism).
Presumably, your great-grandfather also jaywalked at some point in his life. I think it's valid to argue that we have a moral obligation to obey the law, but I'm not convinced most people act as though we do if the crime may be victimless and there's a small chance of getting caught..
You acknowledge copyright infringement is a separate act from theft, yet go on to provide an emotive example of the latter as an apparent means of vilifying the former?
The episodes are available for free on pbs.org. I personally would not pay for it. But then again I was happy to wait for it to show up stateside.
“If they aired a day later,” she says, “illegal pirating would be going on.”
Probably, for different reasons, but likely not anywhere as near as it is today. If you knew stuff would be on in the UK on Th night, and you could see it uncut and unreformatted 26 hours later, you'd be far less likely to have initially bothered to go search it out.
I submit that the awareness and convenience of online 'piracy' of TV shows has been driven, in large part, by the frustration people felt by knowing they'd have to wait months in the first place. Now that there's a whole generation of people who already know how to 'pirate', they're not going to turn back (certainly not without a fight - SOPA, etc) but the content industry has themselves to blame for this again.
We gave up on BBC America back around 2004/2005 because they insisted on showing repeats instead of decent shows, and not explaining themselves. There was one week where they showed a combined 96 hours of "ground force", "changing rooms" and one other insipid home reality show. 96 hours of repeats of just 3 shows. Meanwhile EastEnders was scaled back and they showed less of that, and kept falling further behind. Eventually, after about a year or so of EastEnders in 2004, in to 2005, they started showing repeats of EastEnders from 2004 in place of the then-current episodes. It was as if they thought people wouldn't notice (or care) about getting repeats of a year-old ongoing soap episode. We quit even trying to support BBC America at that point, and turned to full scale torrents of any UK shows we wanted.
In the absence of being able to simply pay a UK TV license fee directly to the appropriate office, we'll just pirate. I realize that $300 still wouldn't cover all the potential ads and such ITV gets, but it'd be a strong start.
Make the BBC channels, ITV, and a couple other UK channels available as a UK package on DirecTV or Dish, charge $49/month, and I'd happily pay, assuming they were uncut feeds.
Probably, for different reasons, but likely not anywhere as near as it is today. If you knew stuff would be on in the UK on Th night, and you could see it uncut and unreformatted 26 hours later, you'd be far less likely to have initially bothered to go search it out.
I submit that the awareness and convenience of online 'piracy' of TV shows has been driven, in large part, by the frustration people felt by knowing they'd have to wait months in the first place. Now that there's a whole generation of people who already know how to 'pirate', they're not going to turn back (certainly not without a fight - SOPA, etc) but the content industry has themselves to blame for this again.
We gave up on BBC America back around 2004/2005 because they insisted on showing repeats instead of decent shows, and not explaining themselves. There was one week where they showed a combined 96 hours of "ground force", "changing rooms" and one other insipid home reality show. 96 hours of repeats of just 3 shows. Meanwhile EastEnders was scaled back and they showed less of that, and kept falling further behind. Eventually, after about a year or so of EastEnders in 2004, in to 2005, they started showing repeats of EastEnders from 2004 in place of the then-current episodes. It was as if they thought people wouldn't notice (or care) about getting repeats of a year-old ongoing soap episode. We quit even trying to support BBC America at that point, and turned to full scale torrents of any UK shows we wanted.
In the absence of being able to simply pay a UK TV license fee directly to the appropriate office, we'll just pirate. I realize that $300 still wouldn't cover all the potential ads and such ITV gets, but it'd be a strong start.
Make the BBC channels, ITV, and a couple other UK channels available as a UK package on DirecTV or Dish, charge $49/month, and I'd happily pay, assuming they were uncut feeds.
> Make the BBC channels, ITV, and a couple other UK channels available as a UK package on DirecTV or Dish, charge $49/month, and I'd happily pay, assuming they were uncut feeds.
From the other side of the pond, I'd like to repeat that sentiment in reverse.
Please don't forget, Americans, that we have just the same problem waiting for American shows, which there are many more of, and therefore also many more great shows.
American sport TV is generally already great from the leagues themselves, with MLB TV, NFL GamePass and whatever the names are for NBA/NHL... but general entertainment/drama/comedy/etc, it's pirate a few hours later or a long, long wait.
From the other side of the pond, I'd like to repeat that sentiment in reverse.
Please don't forget, Americans, that we have just the same problem waiting for American shows, which there are many more of, and therefore also many more great shows.
American sport TV is generally already great from the leagues themselves, with MLB TV, NFL GamePass and whatever the names are for NBA/NHL... but general entertainment/drama/comedy/etc, it's pirate a few hours later or a long, long wait.
I disagree. I don't own a TV anymore, and probably never will.
I want to pull up the shows I want, when I want, and watch them where I want.
To do this, I rely on the following services, in order:
1. Hulu (I'm happy to deal with ads)
2. Network streams (ditto ads)
3. The Pirate Bay (when not available through other means)
4. Another site dedicated to current/past British TV
Re #4 - there's no way, just no way I'm going to wait months to watch a show on PBS that aired on the BBC/ITV/Ch4 yesterday.
IMHO, the most lucrative path for the industry to follow would be a subscription model that's tied to usage.
* Users buy credit, and that credit is used as they download content.
* Current content is more valuable - so the current season of a series costs $X/GB, last season costs $Y/GB, etc.
* Every channel/network is in business for themselves (e.g. cut out Apple/Amazon/DirectTV altogether)
I'm not holding my breath for that scenario though.
I want to pull up the shows I want, when I want, and watch them where I want.
To do this, I rely on the following services, in order:
1. Hulu (I'm happy to deal with ads)
2. Network streams (ditto ads)
3. The Pirate Bay (when not available through other means)
4. Another site dedicated to current/past British TV
Re #4 - there's no way, just no way I'm going to wait months to watch a show on PBS that aired on the BBC/ITV/Ch4 yesterday.
IMHO, the most lucrative path for the industry to follow would be a subscription model that's tied to usage.
* Users buy credit, and that credit is used as they download content.
* Current content is more valuable - so the current season of a series costs $X/GB, last season costs $Y/GB, etc.
* Every channel/network is in business for themselves (e.g. cut out Apple/Amazon/DirectTV altogether)
I'm not holding my breath for that scenario though.
1. Hulu isn't available in the UK
2. Neither are (legal) streams from US networks
Agreed. As it is, DirecTV wants me to pay $85/mo for essentially 4-5 channels. I don't want:
* those other 996 channels
* your DVR to keep adding back stations once I remove them from the hunt list
* your crappy DVR software--TiVo was fine and you replaced it with shit
What I want is a way to pay a reasonable price for the few shows I watch. I can't do that. So, what I do instead is torrent the few shows I watch.
People will pirate until the experience you give them as paying customers is equal to or better than their pirating experience.
* those other 996 channels
* your DVR to keep adding back stations once I remove them from the hunt list
* your crappy DVR software--TiVo was fine and you replaced it with shit
What I want is a way to pay a reasonable price for the few shows I watch. I can't do that. So, what I do instead is torrent the few shows I watch.
People will pirate until the experience you give them as paying customers is equal to or better than their pirating experience.
Here's an explanation of why you pay so much:
http://www.tnl.net/blog/2011/11/06/live-tv-streams-challenge...
http://www.tnl.net/blog/2011/11/06/live-tv-streams-challenge...
"Today, customers are paying a premium for channels they may or may not watch. By offering streaming for a fee, content owner could open up a dialogue with end customers that lets the free market decide which channels live and which ones die. But today, those same companies are using near-monopoly franchises in one field (distribution) to subsidize another… and internet live streaming of their stations could threaten that monopoly."
So, over time they'll lose out to piracy and go bust. If they can't see the handwriting on the wall, then they deserve it. I'll just have to find other ways to get money to the people that produce the content (buying episodes of Community on Amazon, for example).
So, over time they'll lose out to piracy and go bust. If they can't see the handwriting on the wall, then they deserve it. I'll just have to find other ways to get money to the people that produce the content (buying episodes of Community on Amazon, for example).
The same problem of course exists for all us non Americans. Most American TV series air months or years later, if they air at all.
I would love to be able to watch the latest and greatest in entertainment within a day of it airing but that is not possible to do with legal means so 'everyone' turns to piracy.
I would love to be able to watch the latest and greatest in entertainment within a day of it airing but that is not possible to do with legal means so 'everyone' turns to piracy.
Exactly my thoughts.
I'm German so even if my favorite shows finally made it to Germany after years they are usually butchered by a sloppy at best dubbing. If I insisted on English audio I'd have to wait another year to buy the DVDs.
I would love to watch my favorite show with ads or even pay for some of them to be able to support them but unfortunately that's just not possible as of now.
I'm German so even if my favorite shows finally made it to Germany after years they are usually butchered by a sloppy at best dubbing. If I insisted on English audio I'd have to wait another year to buy the DVDs.
I would love to watch my favorite show with ads or even pay for some of them to be able to support them but unfortunately that's just not possible as of now.
Same here, I don't watch dubbed television shows/movies. The only alternatives are TNT and FOX atm, at least with sky you have dual audio.
Oh, God, the German dubs for Star Trek: The Next Generation were horrible - they sounded like the same guy did everybody's voices (OK, except for Troi, fortunately).
And I'll never forget the debut of the Cosby Show in Germany and wanting to show my college friends this show I really liked - and realizing that without Bill Cosby's voice, it was utterly, hopelessly worthless. Not the first time Germans looked at me like I was crazy, but it was a formative experience.
And I'll never forget the debut of the Cosby Show in Germany and wanting to show my college friends this show I really liked - and realizing that without Bill Cosby's voice, it was utterly, hopelessly worthless. Not the first time Germans looked at me like I was crazy, but it was a formative experience.
Indeed. Americans: welcome to our world. The world, in fact.
This isn't new to America. Anyone who's a fan of Japanese or Korean TV has exactly the same problems Europeans experience with American TV.
With the later seasons of Lost, Sky One (UK) aired the newest episodes the night after their US premiere, supposedly to cut down on Sky losing viewers to pirating.
Anecdotally, it worked.
Anecdotally, it worked.
They aired Battlestar Galactica a few hours ahead of the US. I'd imagine the narrower gap put an even deeper impact into piracy.
Actually BSG was aired in the UK a few months before the USA. Season 1 started in October 2004 in UK and January 2005 in USA.
People in the USA must have pirated it loads before it was shown on TV. And yet the TV numbers were still very impressive. This is evidence that piracy doesn't affect sales/viewing figures.
People in the USA must have pirated it loads before it was shown on TV. And yet the TV numbers were still very impressive. This is evidence that piracy doesn't affect sales/viewing figures.
Dutch TV aired BSG months later.
Result: everybody that wanted to see the show had already pirated it, and the viewing figures were miserable.
This has happened with several popular shows.
Result: everybody that wanted to see the show had already pirated it, and the viewing figures were miserable.
This has happened with several popular shows.
Wonder what makes it different? The USA AFAIK had good viewership figures.
No one in the US would expect tohave to pirate a US program from abroad before first run. In the rest of the world it is just routine.
What always ticked me off was the same "non-American" rule applied while we were living in Puerto Rico - which is part of the United States. My kids were watching American cable and weren't able to access the online episodes because we weren't on the continent.
What is particularly annoying, if you like the Facebook account and they tell you about the upcoming episode, for example Big Bang Theory which won't be on for a couple of months.
What's really annoying to me is that they post previews for the upcoming episodes of for example The Big Bang Theory, make you watch the ads and then tell you that the video is not available in your region.
Let's hope tv series like "Touch" have success with their approach, Kiefer Sutherland said they are aiming for a 3 three day window (global broadcast).
That's not really new, here in the Netherlands the gap between US and local broadcasts has now often been reduced to less than a week for certain series.
A 3 day window however is still too long for shows with real fans that want to participate in the global conversation. It may work for procedurals and sitcoms, but not for shows with big stories and cliffhangers like Lost, 24 and such.
Never mind the fact that you still get all the disadvantages of a commercial broadcast: fixed time, annoying station logo's, subtitles (or dubbing depending on the country) and most of all: incessant commercial breaks.
No thanks.
A 3 day window however is still too long for shows with real fans that want to participate in the global conversation. It may work for procedurals and sitcoms, but not for shows with big stories and cliffhangers like Lost, 24 and such.
Never mind the fact that you still get all the disadvantages of a commercial broadcast: fixed time, annoying station logo's, subtitles (or dubbing depending on the country) and most of all: incessant commercial breaks.
No thanks.
Well, in Germany it usually takes at least 3 to 6 months and those are mainstream series like Desperate Housewives or Grey's Anatomy.
I pirated Downton.
I pay for BBCA; moreover, when stuff is available on iTMS I buy, even when I buy the premium cable channel it runs on, even when it's available on VOD, even (for instance, with The Sopranos) when I own much of the physical DVD media for it! I've spent many many hundreds of dollars on iTMS for content that I already had legitimate paid-for access to.
This is of course rationalization; the BBC is entitled to monetize their content however they see fit. That's capitalism. I rely on congruent norms, contracts, &c to make my living, and so do you --- even if you don't sell your own software directly, your wages are effectively subsidized by the defensibility of IP; we are all of us in the business of selling content for (on the face of it) unjustifiable premiums.
But whatever, I'm human. This is perhaps a good reason for media companies to stop doing region encoding and staggered releases and such; it socializes people to piracy. If you've even got me torrenting stuff, you're probably doing something very wrong.
I pay for BBCA; moreover, when stuff is available on iTMS I buy, even when I buy the premium cable channel it runs on, even when it's available on VOD, even (for instance, with The Sopranos) when I own much of the physical DVD media for it! I've spent many many hundreds of dollars on iTMS for content that I already had legitimate paid-for access to.
This is of course rationalization; the BBC is entitled to monetize their content however they see fit. That's capitalism. I rely on congruent norms, contracts, &c to make my living, and so do you --- even if you don't sell your own software directly, your wages are effectively subsidized by the defensibility of IP; we are all of us in the business of selling content for (on the face of it) unjustifiable premiums.
But whatever, I'm human. This is perhaps a good reason for media companies to stop doing region encoding and staggered releases and such; it socializes people to piracy. If you've even got me torrenting stuff, you're probably doing something very wrong.
> If you've even got me torrenting stuff, you're probably doing something very wrong.
I never pirate and even I was sorely tempted. They've managed to produce a hit show that people are excited about, but then expect people to ignore that excitement and delay gratification for months. I feel like I'm one of those kids in the marshmallow experiment.
I never pirate and even I was sorely tempted. They've managed to produce a hit show that people are excited about, but then expect people to ignore that excitement and delay gratification for months. I feel like I'm one of those kids in the marshmallow experiment.
I'm in pretty much the same position. I pay for cable, and extra for their DVR. I pay for netflix. I pay for the BBC's international variant of iplayer, even if it is device-specific.
Every chance they've given me, I've paid. And I still end up 'stealing' content because geolocked business models don't work anymore. If they can't adapt to us, we'll have to adapt to them.
Every chance they've given me, I've paid. And I still end up 'stealing' content because geolocked business models don't work anymore. If they can't adapt to us, we'll have to adapt to them.
It's interesting that this topic is something article worthy to the US; I'm not taking a swing at the US or salon.com. But as someone from the UK, this is the norm for a good majority of TV shows. I'd even make the assumption that if someone told me they can't wait for the next episode of a TV show; that they're waiting for it to become available online for download
Yep, USA welcome to what Hollywood does to the rest of us.
Im in the UK. I regularly download US TV shows at US pace. Take a show like Lost, I wanted to be in the online discussions. Unless you are at US pace, you are basically screwed.
I pay for all the channels that shows like Lost will eventually appear on. So, as far as I am concerned, my habit is perfectly legit.
Lost specifically got to the point where it was aired with in 24 hrs of the US broadcast, and that was fine. In practice I would see the download with in that time span anyway. This is the way to go to stop people downloading.
Problem is, downloading turns out to be easier and more convenient that actually being told when to sit and watch, and how. Its easier than using the broadcasters on line offerings. So, I still download.
Give me a "legit" way that is a quick, easy and free as torrents, etc, I'll use it like a shot.
As for people in the US downloading Downtown, well fair enough. Its should be as available to them as I want it to be here.
I pay for all the channels that shows like Lost will eventually appear on. So, as far as I am concerned, my habit is perfectly legit.
Lost specifically got to the point where it was aired with in 24 hrs of the US broadcast, and that was fine. In practice I would see the download with in that time span anyway. This is the way to go to stop people downloading.
Problem is, downloading turns out to be easier and more convenient that actually being told when to sit and watch, and how. Its easier than using the broadcasters on line offerings. So, I still download.
Give me a "legit" way that is a quick, easy and free as torrents, etc, I'll use it like a shot.
As for people in the US downloading Downtown, well fair enough. Its should be as available to them as I want it to be here.
This, exactly. Most of the TV shows I do watch are American and are shown on TV the next day at best, and never at worst. I don't feel bad downloading and viewing something that I'm already paying for to get it in advance, and I'm certain millions of others on both sides of the pond feel the same.
A friend of mine works in BBC sales. He tells me that selling rights for their TV shows to channels in various countries is highly lucrative for the BBC.
He also tells me that he understands this model won't last much longer. But until then, for economic reasons, the BBC doesn't want to make it too easy for you to watch their content directly in your non-UK country without going through a local channel.
He also tells me that he understands this model won't last much longer. But until then, for economic reasons, the BBC doesn't want to make it too easy for you to watch their content directly in your non-UK country without going through a local channel.
International sales, distribution, and licensing has been a major cash cow of the TV industry for decades. It works in the other direction, as well, i.e., from the USA to the UK (and to other countries).
Your friend is correct in that the appeal of this cash cow is why the industry will fight tooth and nail before they have to put her out to pasture. The model is going to become irrelevant sooner or later, but for the time being, it's still paying off handsomely. It will go, but it won't go quietly.
Your friend is correct in that the appeal of this cash cow is why the industry will fight tooth and nail before they have to put her out to pasture. The model is going to become irrelevant sooner or later, but for the time being, it's still paying off handsomely. It will go, but it won't go quietly.
The crazy part is that they could replace it with a new cash cow by simply charging for convenient access. Not only that, but you could deal with fewer middlemen, get more control over your own product distribution.
How lucrative? As lucrative as a £1 rental of each episode of Downton Abbey or Dr. Who available the day after it is broadcast?
Because that's the price point I would pay to watch a current episode.
Because that's the price point I would pay to watch a current episode.
They keep talking about releasing iplayer as a global subscription service. It will clearly happen sometime soon.
The irony is that if ACTA passes we'll probably have to VPN INTO China to freely watch delicious delicious western TV shows on PPStream and the likes.
The topic reminds me of a presentation by Mark Pesce: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCoCTc3T5Q
In it he talks about how piracy has helped some shows, and alternate forms of publishing (physical media, online). Keep in mind that he's speaking from an Australian viewpoint and the economics are slightly different in this case mostly discussing content produced for another market... But it could be good stuff for you Kill Hollywood thinkers.
In it he talks about how piracy has helped some shows, and alternate forms of publishing (physical media, online). Keep in mind that he's speaking from an Australian viewpoint and the economics are slightly different in this case mostly discussing content produced for another market... But it could be good stuff for you Kill Hollywood thinkers.
Is it illegal to purchase a VPN account in the states and pay for a Netflix subscription?
If it's convenient or solves your problem, it's illegal. Just use that as a rule of thumb.
It's not illegal, but it is against Netflix's TOS:
> You may not circumvent, remove, alter, deactivate, degrade or thwart any of the content protections in the Netflix service.
Using a VPN to access content from another region would be considered circumventing content protections.
> You may not circumvent, remove, alter, deactivate, degrade or thwart any of the content protections in the Netflix service.
Using a VPN to access content from another region would be considered circumventing content protections.
It is probably not illegal to purchase a VPN connection.
However check the Netflix terms of use. They may specify that you can only access it if you are located in the USA. If you are using a VPN you are accessing a computer system without authorisation, which is illegal in the USA (and most other countries). You are unlikely to be convicted of it (though it did sorta happen once in the USA).
However check the Netflix terms of use. They may specify that you can only access it if you are located in the USA. If you are using a VPN you are accessing a computer system without authorisation, which is illegal in the USA (and most other countries). You are unlikely to be convicted of it (though it did sorta happen once in the USA).
When I lived in Europe from 2006-2008, I was able to purchase and download episodes online from Apple iTunes with a U.S. Credit Card.
I was unable to access Hulu or Netflix streaming when they debuted, which made me sad.
I was unable to access Hulu or Netflix streaming when they debuted, which made me sad.
In markets where even a delayed rebroadcast is vanishingly unlikely, online streaming is absolutely thriving. For example, a whole lot of anime hits Crunchyroll and Hulu before the fansub groups ever get a crack at it. These sites and a few others are also expanding into live action Japanese and Korean TV.
However, I think this only works when there's very little competition (from broadcasters) for individual shows. The BBC is probably in the worst position possible for an attempt to move to this model due to interplay between company-wide policy and the negotiating power of its international counterparts. Previous agreements with cable companies can't help much either.
However, I think this only works when there's very little competition (from broadcasters) for individual shows. The BBC is probably in the worst position possible for an attempt to move to this model due to interplay between company-wide policy and the negotiating power of its international counterparts. Previous agreements with cable companies can't help much either.
Now you know you see a franction of the problem most Europeans face.
All our american (TV) content comes in 3-6 month delays. The fact HBO has decided to scrap their online distribution is just beyond me.
All our american (TV) content comes in 3-6 month delays. The fact HBO has decided to scrap their online distribution is just beyond me.
I pirate Top Gear. BBC America butchers the hell out of the program. For starters, because they can't be bothered to secure music rights worldwide, they replace all the well-chosen, synchronized music with awful public domain stuff. Assuming we're all uninterested and intolerant, they often cut out the guest interviews, despite the usually witty banter being enjoyable on its own. Finally, in the ultimate insult, before every ad break they actually show you the punchline to the next segment! They literally ruin each and every show, segment by segment!
If I'm watching BBC America, it's because I want to watch the BBC. I don't want to watch some watered down, Americanized version. I truly don't whether they hired dumb Americans, or they're just snobby Brits who think Americans are too dumb for their shows. Either way, it's insulting and not very entertaining.
So, I can't speak for Downtown Abbey, but if it's treated anything like Top Gear, I can't imagine why they would think we'd want to watch their delayed, edited, watered down slop.
Incidentally, I have looked into legal channels for purchasing Top Gear and they're all edited. The only one that, I think, is legitimately original is the British-release of the DVD, but I'm pretty sure that I would be technically committing a crime by bypassing region limitations on those discs.
So, is it legal? No. Is it morally correct? No. Is it okay? Yes, in my book, because the value I place on the original, unmodified, timely content outweighs the legal and moral argument against pirating it.
If I'm watching BBC America, it's because I want to watch the BBC. I don't want to watch some watered down, Americanized version. I truly don't whether they hired dumb Americans, or they're just snobby Brits who think Americans are too dumb for their shows. Either way, it's insulting and not very entertaining.
So, I can't speak for Downtown Abbey, but if it's treated anything like Top Gear, I can't imagine why they would think we'd want to watch their delayed, edited, watered down slop.
Incidentally, I have looked into legal channels for purchasing Top Gear and they're all edited. The only one that, I think, is legitimately original is the British-release of the DVD, but I'm pretty sure that I would be technically committing a crime by bypassing region limitations on those discs.
So, is it legal? No. Is it morally correct? No. Is it okay? Yes, in my book, because the value I place on the original, unmodified, timely content outweighs the legal and moral argument against pirating it.
Hear hear! I'm a huge fan of Top Gear. I even had a subscription to the magazine (shipped from the UK) before it got ridiculously expensive.
Downloading is the only way I can watch it. Years ago, before I got rid of cable, it wasn't on BBC America. Now that it's available, in a horrible edited form, I don't have cable.
I've considered watching it on iPlayer via VPN but AFAIK the quality is much lower. Plus this would actually put the BBC in a worse position, having to pay for bandwidth I'm otherwise using from fellow enthusiast sharing the file.
I would pay if there was a way to legally watch it online, preferably in HD and close to the original release date.
Downloading is the only way I can watch it. Years ago, before I got rid of cable, it wasn't on BBC America. Now that it's available, in a horrible edited form, I don't have cable.
I've considered watching it on iPlayer via VPN but AFAIK the quality is much lower. Plus this would actually put the BBC in a worse position, having to pay for bandwidth I'm otherwise using from fellow enthusiast sharing the file.
I would pay if there was a way to legally watch it online, preferably in HD and close to the original release date.
On the point of music. I don't think they can do much about it. In the UK the BBC can basically use any music they want - even if the artist doesn't want it used - but as soon as it reaches DVD or is shipped abroad it becomes expensive and complicated.
An example is the series Monkey Dust. It had an amazing soundtrack and was a cult hit (until the guy behind it died). The distributors for the UK DVD release had to pay bands to perform cover versions for a lot of the tracks because it was too difficult to get the rights.
The alternative is to limit their choice and pick the music with the aim to sell it. I am not a fan of this. It's like when you see a BBC show that's been made for advert breaks, so every 15 mins we (people in the UK) get a recap and some padding that they obviously plan to cut later. Or the show is only 40 mins, instead of 60.
An example is the series Monkey Dust. It had an amazing soundtrack and was a cult hit (until the guy behind it died). The distributors for the UK DVD release had to pay bands to perform cover versions for a lot of the tracks because it was too difficult to get the rights.
The alternative is to limit their choice and pick the music with the aim to sell it. I am not a fan of this. It's like when you see a BBC show that's been made for advert breaks, so every 15 mins we (people in the UK) get a recap and some padding that they obviously plan to cut later. Or the show is only 40 mins, instead of 60.
Is it OK to steal content from Hacker News?
Is it OK to republish someone's blog post under your own name?
Is it OK to steal free coupons from your neighbors' mailbox?
Is it OK to steal free phones provided by phone companies (mostly feature phones) ?
If your answer to any of the above is Yes, you probably will think that stealing "Downtown Abbey" is OK. Otherwise, think really hard and try to explain the difference.
If your answer to any of the above is Yes, you probably will think that stealing "Downtown Abbey" is OK. Otherwise, think really hard and try to explain the difference.
What does "steal from HN" even mean? The blog example isn't valid: nobody is taking shows and putting their names in the credits (at least, pertaining to this conversation). Coupons and phones are physical items that have very different rules and mores associated with them.
B. The internet thrives precisely because it is transnational. This allows for quality programming to span the world.
C. There is an international market for current episodes of popular TV shows. There is such a large market that people are willing to commit copyright infringement.
D. Just because your business model doesn't adapt to the market, does not automatically mean that your business model deserves protection in the market.
E. Media content creators have long protected their international licensing agreements with anti-customer technology like DVD Regions.
F. At the end of the day, the customer doesn't care. They will find a better product in the market.
G. It's my experience that people who pirate out of this frustration, are happy to pay when it is available. The person who pirated the Christmas Special would have paid money to see it, it was just not available at any price.