Show Sharing?

[DocTauri]

As I understand it, we're not allowed to discuss show sharing at DDB. I understand the problem with discussing it for PPV and subscriber channels like HBO, etc., but does this apply even to network feed shows? If I were looking for a specific episode of, say, Desperate Housewives, is this still not allowed? And if not here, can someone point me to where this type of this IS discussed?

Thanks,
Doc

[JJBliss]

It is not allowed.

If for no other reason then it will invariably increase the attention of Tivo, et al regarding unencrypted extraction.

Telling you where to look for it, is akin to allowing it.

mpauley had some interesting references around DDB. Look for his posts.

JJ

[alldeadhomiez]

I understand the problem with discussing it for PPV and subscriber channels like HBO, etc., but does this apply even to network feed shows?

Those are copyrighted too...

Please don't use the community's tools for evil. Show swapping is not fair use.

[mbellot]

Show swapping is not fair use.

With the networks playing games with start and stop times you could set up a system with another Tivo owner to record conflicting shows and then swap so you don't miss anything from either show.

You would have recorded everything from both shows except the overlap anyway so arguing its not fair use is a bit of a stretch.

OTOH - I agree that wholesale public sharing of shows is not fair use. The problem is that one invariably leads to the other when people with no morals learn how to do it (and/or profit from it).

[alldeadhomiez]

You would have recorded everything from both shows except the overlap anyway so arguing its not fair use is a bit of a stretch.

If you are using "fair use" as a legal term, I fail to see how it would permit redistribution of copyrighted works outside a very narrow scope:

http://www.virtualrecordings.com/betamax.htm
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm

Swapping full copyrighted recordings with somebody else would appear not to be covered under any definition of "fair use."

If you are defining "fair use" as "a use that is subjectively 'fair'", I would agree with your assessment; however, this site is not well equipped to fight these legal battles and therefore will not facilitate redistribution of copyrighted material, 'fair' or not.

[psxboy]

I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, but from a practical standpoint I don't see why "show-swapping" should be demonized by the TV industry. Don't get me wrong... I can see the problems that might develop if someone starts spreading copies of movies recorded from a premium channel, or (god forbid!) a football game makes it way to a blacked-out area. But for regular over-the-air free-for-all-to-receive TV shows on regular channels, show-swapping should be allowed. The way they talk about it, just because I wasn't sitting in front of my TV during primetime (or didn't have a device that I own watching it for me) then I'm not allowed to see the latest & greatest Survivor or some such stupidity. I've said it before & I'll say it again, if they broadcast something over a public, free-for-all-to-receive channel, then that content is fair-game for whomever wants to watch it, whether it's in real-time or after-the-fact. Am I the only one this makes sense to?

And again, I'm not advocating breaking the rules of this forum... just throwing that out there in the interests of creating a discussion of the legalities. (Maybe this belongs in the sewer?)

-psxboy

[tivo4mevo]

psxboy wrote:
But for regular over-the-air free-for-all-to-receive TV shows on regular channels, show-swapping should be allowed.

On a philosophical level, this makes intuitive sense to TV viewers; after all, you didn't call NBC and ask them to broadcast the TV signals, you certainly don't pay them any money for it, and if they sent you a bill, you most certainly would be within your rights to tell them to take a hike.

But from the point of view of the studio's and television stations, they don't believe that they are giving away their programming (shows and entertainment) for free. Rather, for them, the money to produce shows, pay actors, etc. comes from the sale of advertisements and syndication. The more viewers that watch a given show, the higher the advertisment fee they can command (with popular sporting events commanding some of the highest fees). Hence, they view their broadcasts as dispensing their programming (programming which costs them money to create) bound together with the advertisments (advertisments that produce money for them).

Show swapping would cause fewer people to watch live TV (which might be reflected in the various rating), their advertising revenue drops, they can pay their actors less, the quality of shows drops, and the whole system degrades (or at least that's how they think it will play out). Even if the show swappers left commericals intact, the studios have no way to track who, when, and how many people are watching the swapped shows, and thus can't collect any advertising revenue.

What may seem like free at first, is actually a tacit agreement between the television viewer and the studio: the viewer agrees to sit through unwanted advertisements to see the desirable programming provided by the studio. Note that this agreement has been altered by the studios over the years (just track how the number of minutes per hour of programming has changed over the past forty years).

Another point is the syndication of shows, in which a studio will allow other stations to broadcast their show, while receiving royalties. Thus, Studios view their content (both current and old) as commodities, and show swapping threatens to turn all of that on its head--stripping them of control over their content and devaluing their precious commodities as files are traded for free between peers on the Internet.

For these reasons, the studios can't allow or condone show swapping without losing money.

All that being said, the tacit agreement is just that: unspoken. And now that TV viewers have the technology within grasp to gain control, they will dispense with the advertisements and swap shows--forcing a paradigm shift. I wouldn't be surprised to see advertising somehow blended into the programming content to prevent decoupling the advertisments from the content. Or perhaps a technology race at first, with ever-stronger encryption of programming succumbing to crackers. But ultimately, I think that as profits are eaten into, the studios will adopt a different schema.

Perhaps one not-unlike iTunes and other pay for music services. Many viewers might abandon peer-to-peer downloads if on-demand content were available for reasonable price and were faster/easier.

Your thoughts?

JB

[psxboy]

That's an interesting point of view... and one that I can understand and respect from the point of view of the content providers. I guess where I diverge from that thinking is this: if I miss Survivor, they still got paid the same amount for the commercials. By making it illegal for me to find a copy of it on the net for later viewing, it just seems like they're punishing me for missing it in the first place. They aren't losing any money... in fact, I might actually see a commercial that I would've missed otherwise. But I can also imagine a scenario where this type of show-swapping becomes commonplace and people routinely download their weekly dose of TV from p2p networks. It would likely force a change to the profit models currently in place... similar to what the recording industry is facing now.
I wouldn't be surprised to see advertising somehow blended into the programming content to prevent decoupling the advertisments from the content.
It's funny you should mention this... from http://www.digitalsyndicate.tv/openmike.html:
Speaking of sports, technology already well established in this programming genre is now ready to cross over into the realm of program syndication. The art of virtual product placement has been used for some time in sports to digitally insert product logos onto such things as signs behind the batter’s box during baseball broadcasts. The same concept is used when you see first down markers superimposed onto the field when watching a football game. Renewed interest in this marketing agent is being brought up again by Warner Bros. Domestic Television Distribution in the form of what they call “digital branded integration." Warner wants to purchase this technology of digitally inserting everyday consumer products and incorporate it into their syndicated programs, especially sitcoms. Since most sitcoms can almost guarantee a scene taking place in a bathroom, kitchen or anywhere else laden with household items, appropriate products could be inserted easily.
This isn't the original article I saw regarding this particular phenomenon, but it contained a line further down in the article that I thought was interesting:
[Regarding 10-second commercial spots] As one Sony spokesman says of the 10-second method, “It’s TiVo resistant.”

-psxboy

[DocTauri]

Or maybe we'll go back to the early days of television, where the main character reaches for a product and the scene freezes as he turns to the camera and espouses the virtues of using this product, (i.e. Al Bundy reaches in the fridge for a beer, as he takes a long pull, the scene stops, he turns to the TV and says "Miller Lite, tastes great and is less filling", scene starts again).

God that would suck.

Doc
P.S. (I had to use espouse here because you guys were using big words too)
:p

[psxboy]

I had to use espouse here because you guys were using big words too
An unfortunate byproduct of the fact that I'm a voracious reader. ;)

-psxboy

[alldeadhomiez]

I've said it before & I'll say it again, if they broadcast something over a public, free-for-all-to-receive channel, then that content is fair-game for whomever wants to watch it, whether it's in real-time or after-the-fact. Am I the only one this makes sense to?

Your Congress and the FCC have the power to regulate these transmissions and impose certain conditions in exchange for the right to use the spectrum. For better or for worse, this is not one of the conditions.

As businesses, the major networks have no incentive to cede control of their own programming to the viewers. It won't happen unless it is required by law.

Moved to General Discussions.

[JJBliss]

P.S. (I had to use espouse here because you guys were using big words too)
:p

sesquipedalian, even.

[classicsat]

That's an interesting point of view... and one that I can understand and respect from the point of view of the content providers. I guess where I diverge from that thinking is this: if I miss Survivor, they still got paid the same amount for the commercials. By making it illegal for me to find a copy of it on the net for later viewing, it just seems like they're punishing me for missing it in the first place. They aren't losing any money... in fact, I might actually see a commercial that I would've missed otherwise.

That a similar argument satellite theives and illegal MP3 traders make.

The fact is that you probably don't have the right to that recording, and your local affiliate proably didn't get paid, and you don't see your local advertising.
That fact makes it fundamentally a sort of theft.

But I can also imagine a scenario where this type of show-swapping becomes commonplace and people routinely download their weekly dose of TV from p2p networks. It would likely force a change to the profit models currently in place... similar to what the recording industry is facing now.


Won't happen. With the fallout of may of the illegitimate P2P networks,
a pay P2P music network never emerged, so I doubt a pay TV program PP type network will.