TiVo Community Forum

TiVo Community Forum Archive 2
Covering threads with a last post date between
July 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005.
THIS IS A READ ONLY SITE
 


 

SEARCH  |  ARCHIVE 1 MAIN SITE

 
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-20-2005, 10:19 AM   #91 (Print)
Stormspace
Disruptive Influence
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to Stormspace
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynthetiq
[QUOTE=Stormspace][QUOTE=FlWingNut]
IMO you are comparing apples to oranges. The computer game market created a sense of Abandonware, where they didn't protect their copyrights so vigorously. Anyone knowing copyright law knows that if you do not persue them all you cannot change your mind later on.


Not certain where this came from. I dont' think I mentioned computer games, at least not in this thread.

__________________
180hr Series 2
w/Blitzz BWU613 NetWave Point USB
80hr Series 2
w/linksys WUSB11 USB Adapter
Galleon 2.1 on 260GB WIN2000

"No daddy, it's a 181 hour tivo" - Margaret
Stormspace is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 10:27 AM   #92 (Print)
Stormspace
Disruptive Influence
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to Stormspace
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynthetiq
Many shows make it to some sort of syndiation. There's plenty of cable channels that can buy those less profitable shows. Trio plays Brilliant but Cancelled. Now there's plenty of shows that never made it past season 1, that's an outlet for it.


Really, I'm not seeing that myself except with a hand full of prime time shows that generally take three to four seasons on the air before they make it to syndication. The only exception I can recall off hand was Stargate. Showtime played one season ahead of Fox for several years, though I'm not sure that was a syndication deal.

__________________
180hr Series 2
w/Blitzz BWU613 NetWave Point USB
80hr Series 2
w/linksys WUSB11 USB Adapter
Galleon 2.1 on 260GB WIN2000

"No daddy, it's a 181 hour tivo" - Margaret
Stormspace is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 10:31 AM   #93 (Print)
gonzotek
tivo_xml developer
 
gonzotek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Outside Phildadelphia
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg
You are talking about concerts, I am talking about MP3 files on bittorrent. They are two totally different things. THe MP3 files can be made with a few people, there in a garage. It does not take technical knowledge to use garageband and just make a song, author it to MP3 and put a .torrent on a website. A concert on the other hand, is hard to do, and touring with music you released for free on Bittorrent is a REAL job if you work a bunch.
Although the files can be made and released relatively cheaply, someone had to go through the effort of learning to play an instrument, purchasing the equipment(guitar, amp, mic, etc.) to record and pre-master the audio, purchasing software to digitize and further manipulate it(not to mention the mac or pc itself), and paying for an internet connection to upload it. They just might happen to want to profit from all that time, money, effort and dedication; and if they do, it's their right NOT to have to give it away. They should have the choice to do such, if they think it's a good idea for their personal career. But that doesn't mean they should be required by their potential audience(you). You're saying that if they don't give it to you the way you want it, you'll just take it by force and without compensating them, and that's just wrong. Ask some non-superstar musicians who don't just play for a hobby, but actively try to make a living off of their talent if they appreciate file traders stealing their work. There are a lot more levels than just hobbyist 'garage bands' and mega-superstars. There are studio recording artists who sit in on more famous people's sessions, people who write television and movie background music, radio jingles, etc(I could go on). All of these people depend on the copyright system to earn a living. My uncle is a session musician by day and casino lounge act by night. He records albums and sells them at shows. Without the additional profits the sales of his albums bring in, he would be forced to find other forms of work, and therefore would have less time available for creating new material.
gonzotek is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 10:40 AM   #94 (Print)
cynthetiq
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg
You are talking about concerts, I am talking about MP3 files on bittorrent. They are two totally different things. THe MP3 files can be made with a few people, there in a garage. It does not take technical knowledge to use garageband and just make a song, author it to MP3 and put a .torrent on a website. A concert on the other hand, is hard to do, and touring with music you released for free on Bittorrent is a REAL job if you work a bunch.

I am making just as much of a political statement as I am stealing. Stealing a DVD player and stealing a movie is a very different thing. Stealing a DVD player is losing them real money, the money they spent to buy that DVD player, whereas the movie is supposed "lost" "potential" revenue, that they didn't actually lost. If bestbuy put all of thier DVD player on the roof for teh first 8 months they were out, I might steal them. Probably not, as I would never actually steal anything.


to quote Mr. John Lennon, "Whatever gets you through the night." :rollseyes:

we are talking about INDUSTRIES here not garage locations, not concert venues. Suddenly you've changed the foundation of ideas. The entertainment industry harvests billions of dollars worldwide and employs tens of thousands of people worldwide.

Sure you can craft from a garage, many companies got their start from garages, HP, Apple, Palm to name a few technology companies.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Independent, either you're an ******* or you're not.
cynthetiq is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 10:51 AM   #95 (Print)
cynthetiq
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormspace
Really, I'm not seeing that myself except with a hand full of prime time shows that generally take three to four seasons on the air before they make it to syndication. The only exception I can recall off hand was Stargate. Showtime played one season ahead of Fox for several years, though I'm not sure that was a syndication deal.


Showtime (Viacom owned) cancelled Stargate, but the fans were able to lobby and show that there was value in it. Sci-Fi bought the rights to produce new shows. I believe that UPN (Viacom owned) shows the syndications of the Showtime seasons.

That's another thing, some shows have found new life on new networks, Buffy moving from WB to UPN, JAG from NBC to CBS (? not sure about that one but recall it somewhat)

Correct, what you are seeing now are relaxed rules syndication now is about 100 shows 3-4 years.

But that doesn't mean that a show has to hit those numbers to make it:

Quote:
LINK
Most hour-long TV dramas are shot over eight days, most sitcoms in three to six hours once every eight days (as opposed to soap operas, described earlier in this section, which tape one or sometimes two hour-long episodes each weekday). A show generally produces enough programming to fill five or six months of weekly programming, the rest of the slots are filled with reruns. Generally, any particular episode is eligible for two repeats before it becomes dramatically more expensive for a network to re-air it. If a show becomes a hit, after 100 episodes it becomes "eligible" for syndication. However that even before cable, that did not always apply. For instance, Star Trek's 79 episodes and The Honeymooners original 39 were considered sufficient for syndication for decades, and in recent years Disney has limited all shows, even hits, to 65 episodes. With the rise of cable nets, the resulting need for programming has lowered that benchmark for shows that are believed to have very reliable audiences. When a TV show originally produced by one network is rerun by another it is known as off-network syndication. (For more on syndication, see syndication and independent television below.)

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Independent, either you're an ******* or you're not.
cynthetiq is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 10:57 AM   #96 (Print)
ZeoTiVo
fantastic four TiVos
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzotek
I was going to make a crack about the general lack of punctuation and proper grammar beyond using 'whatnot' correctly, but I am myself humor-challenged and didn't think I could pull it off without either bringing grammar nazi's down on myself or seeming like a prick to Zeo (which wasn't my intention).

So, uh, yeah, back on topic: What would people who freely pirate do if the talent behind the productions they like to steal decided to stop producing new material since they feel they are no longer adequately compensated for their efforts(ie no more movies/tv shows/etc. by talented people who deserve to earn a paycheck for their work)?


steal this book

yes grammar rules and whatnot are so the reason I type messages into a public forum. Bad grammar and punctuation that affects readability is one thing, having to point out the word whatnot which detracts from the direction of the thread is just as bad.

back to topic
now equating the music industry to a bunch of people in garage is ludicrous. Ironically a great legitimate use of file sharing is for those bands in the garage that are trying to get their break into the known universe. But once they have developed a musical style that is all the rave and many people want to listen to, are they supposed to just keep on using a powerbook adn not explore beyond that. Would the next Phil Specter just show up and start helping them with production ideas that greatly enhance the recorded track ? Should the band not be allowed to hire people to take care of marketing and packaging the product, including making digital files available for sale in some way ?

I also have used the example of Peter jackson and the LOTR trilogy. would a small production company have risked the 300 million on three movies to some unknown producer with a great vision for the movies (most of that companies investment capital) if they thought they could not count on movie theater sales and then DVD rentals/sales? I think they had a right to expect that the only place to first see these movies was in the theater where they could count on profits there and then the same people getting the DVD later. That is not a rip off, but a business model.

obviously the business model is changing - movie theater tickets have gone up because people know they can watch a movie at home now at some point. Those LOTR movies had to be good to get the people in the seats. other movies go straight to DVD now and you have the atom films type stuff on the internet. I do also think that paying 5$ for a typical movie on movielinks or VOD is also thievery and do not use that service at all.

still our capatilistic system works on incentive. People should have the incentive to make a blockbuster movie like LOTR by being able to gamble on the payoff of lots of people in seats at the movie theater and then DVD income after that. should the sale of action figures and whatnot be discouraged ? should I just go into BestBuy and scoop up a LOTR chess set ? Shoud it just cost the same as the standard plastic chess set and not make any extra profit off association to the movies?

oh and VCRs themselves were never made legal or illegal, the process of making a copy of show for later viewing by the individual was made legal but that ruling was certainly made in light of the tech of the time. Not much chance of massive swapping of VCR tapes. So as long as people expect it is their "right" to get free copies of whatever and the technology makes it easier to have the same experience as in a movie theater or concert setting (minus the other people) then the copyright holders will stay draconian and demand tough laws. I would like to personally thank all the freeloaders out there for the encryption of .tivo files - you have been a big hinderance to my enjoyment of entertainment in a manner supportive of all the people who work at jobs to make it possible
ZeoTiVo is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 11:27 AM   #97 (Print)
ZeoTiVo
fantastic four TiVos
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,704
The U.S. Supreme Court may issue a decision Thursday in the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster file-sharing case.

<note> the irony is that MGM now owns Sony
the second irony is that what I did by copying the article here was a copyright violation as well</note>

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...D&siteid=google
Quote:
Originally Posted by from article
At issue is whether or not Internet file-sharing networks should be held responsible if copyrights are infringed by users of their software.

The high court's ruling will have significant implications for the future of digital content delivery, amid the increasing use of portable devices capable of playing audio and video files.

If the court rules in favor of Grokster, movie studios - already concerned about piracy -- could become more reluctant to make their content available for download over the Internet.

MGM, now owned by Sony Corp. (SNE: news, chart, profile) (JP:6758: news, chart, profile) , and other big-name movie and music companies, including Walt Disney Co., News Corp.'s (NWS: news, chart, profile) Twentieth Century Fox, Universal (GE: news, chart, profile) (V: news, chart, profile) , Warner Bros. Records and others are suing Grokster and StreamCast Networks, the parent of Morpheus. Grokster and Morpheus are file-sharing networks used to swap music, movies and software.

In August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed a district court ruling that the file-swapping networks aren't responsible for any infringements by their users.

The studios appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that the primary use of such networks is for the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials, and that the companies that operate them should therefore be held responsible for infringements.

The Ninth Circuit had agreed with the district court's view that Grokster and StreamCast are no different from Sony's Betamax VCR, which prompted a lawsuit by Universal Studios and Walt Disney Co. that led to a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1984.

In 1976, Universal and Disney claimed that the Betamax, which had just been introduced in the U.S., allowed users to infringe copyrights by taping programs off the air. They asked that the sale of the machines be stopped.

Sony said consumers had the right to record programs at home, for private use, just as people recorded songs from the radio and record players. The Supreme Court sided with Sony.
ZeoTiVo is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 12:01 PM   #98 (Print)
Stormspace
Disruptive Influence
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to Stormspace
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeoTiVo
oh and VCRs themselves were never made legal or illegal, the process of making a copy of show for later viewing by the individual was made legal but that ruling was certainly made in light of the tech of the time. Not much chance of massive swapping of VCR tapes. So as long as people expect it is their "right" to get free copies of whatever and the technology makes it easier to have the same experience as in a movie theater or concert setting (minus the other people) then the copyright holders will stay draconian and demand tough laws. I would like to personally thank all the freeloaders out there for the encryption of .tivo files - you have been a big hinderance to my enjoyment of entertainment in a manner supportive of all the people who work at jobs to make it possible


Copyright laws have always been draconian and the MPAA has fought every attempt to loosen them long before the digital age arrived and only a court order made em back off. They have taken the same hard line every single time the issue of copyright has come to the table and if you were to ask them, they'd even say it was illegal to take a VHS to a friends house or to copy a CD for the car. The MPAA and the RIAA have never given us anything, we've had to take it, either through court mandated rulings (sony vs. MPAA) or via legislation (Home audios recording act).

This P2P revolution is just an extension of the struggle of the customer against a monopoly that started with the betamax. Customers want to do more and the AA's of the world want us to be able to do less. And they are still at it by pushing the broadcast flag. Oops Zeo, I'm sorry you can only keep that show on your tivo for 3 days.

For me I have a special love of movies and the one or two movie rips that came into my possession weren't worth the plastic they were burned on. I'd rather wait for the DVD or see it in the theatre. TV shows however are another matter.

__________________
180hr Series 2
w/Blitzz BWU613 NetWave Point USB
80hr Series 2
w/linksys WUSB11 USB Adapter
Galleon 2.1 on 260GB WIN2000

"No daddy, it's a 181 hour tivo" - Margaret
Stormspace is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 12:18 PM   #99 (Print)
Stormspace
Disruptive Influence
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to Stormspace
I just wanted to add in a compliment about TiVo. As a company they are really doing a smart thing by keeping themselves out of the whole copyright infringement arena. They are much too small a company to survive a long and protracted law suit with the MPAA and are smart to keep themselves out their crosshairs. Let someone else fight the battle and if things change they can take advantage of the new rules then.

__________________
180hr Series 2
w/Blitzz BWU613 NetWave Point USB
80hr Series 2
w/linksys WUSB11 USB Adapter
Galleon 2.1 on 260GB WIN2000

"No daddy, it's a 181 hour tivo" - Margaret
Stormspace is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 12:20 PM   #100 (Print)
ZeoTiVo
fantastic four TiVos
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormspace
Copyright laws have always been draconian and the MPAA has fought every attempt to loosen them long before the digital age arrived and only a court order made em back off. They have taken the same hard line every single time the issue of copyright has come to the table and if you were to ask them, they'd even say it was illegal to take a VHS to a friends house or to copy a CD for the car. The MPAA and the RIAA have never given us anything, we've had to take it, either through court mandated rulings (sony vs. MPAA) or via legislation (Home audios recording act).

This P2P revolution is just an extension of the struggle of the customer against a monopoly that started with the betamax. Customers want to do more and the AA's of the world want us to be able to do less. And they are still at it by pushing the broadcast flag. Oops Zeo, I'm sorry you can only keep that show on your tivo for 3 days.

For me I have a special love of movies and the one or two movie rips that came into my possession weren't worth the plastic they were burned on. I'd rather wait for the DVD or see it in the theatre. TV shows however are another matter.


and actually I beleive that for anything but OTA shows it is illegal to take a VHS to another house or make a copy of a CD and use both. I highly doubt either act will result in concrete legal action however. This is the problem with all laws, it is hard to make a law around all the reasonable exceptions. The law outlaws marijuana pipes but they are not marijuana pipes until someone says they intend to use it for that. How do you account for the difference in a written law even though I could walk into a store and tell you right off if it was a tobacca shop or a head shop.

So how do you create a law that allows for people timeshifting a show vs just getting the shows off the internet and not paying for cable or whatever. Who is going to go through them all to make sure they are in original form with no editing. Just like a head shop is obvisouly for marijuana it is obvious there is a significant percentage of P2P traffic solely to beat having to pay anything for content that would otherwise involve some form of commerce to obtain to view.

in other words how could copyright holders be anything but draconian in order to hold onto any of the commerce value of their content. Napster is a testament to what would happen if people had any leeway within the law.
ZeoTiVo is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 12:29 PM   #101 (Print)
Stormspace
Disruptive Influence
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to Stormspace
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeoTiVo
So how do you create a law that allows for people timeshifting a show vs just getting the shows off the internet and not paying for cable.


But what if the downloader does pay for cable, he just missed it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeoTiVo
Who is going to go through them all to make sure they are in original form with no editing.


A case just went through the courts that say movies can be edited for use if the content is offensive. Some Utah company was selling something to edit DVD content. The MPAA exploded saying that regardless of how obsene some material may be it shouldn't be edited as the artistic message of the film would be changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeoTiVo
Just like a head shop it is obvious there is a significant percentage of P2P traffic solely to beat having to pay anything for content that would otherwise involve some form of commerce to obtain to view.

in other words how could copyright holders be anything but draconian in order to hold onto any of the commerce value of their content. Napster is a testament to what would happen if people had any leeway within the law.


For TV shows the money has been made by the time of the airing, paid for by advertisers. If the show is popular they might be able to get more money several years down the road through syndication, but they can't count on that when the show is first aired.

__________________
180hr Series 2
w/Blitzz BWU613 NetWave Point USB
80hr Series 2
w/linksys WUSB11 USB Adapter
Galleon 2.1 on 260GB WIN2000

"No daddy, it's a 181 hour tivo" - Margaret
Stormspace is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 12:38 PM   #102 (Print)
dgh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormspace
But what if the downloader does pay for cable, he just missed it..


I'd like to see the DRM implementation that determines that

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormspace
For TV shows the money has been made by the time of the airing, paid for by advertisers.


However, for any significant number of people who switch to downloading edited shows for a significant amount of their viewing, money paid at the time of airing will decrease.
dgh is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 01:31 PM   #103 (Print)
ZeoTiVo
fantastic four TiVos
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormspace
But what if the downloader does pay for cable, he just missed it.
that is my point, how can that be determined in a legal way. In other words a common sense law as oppossed to a strict "draconian" law has no chance of holding up in the real world since people will subvert all the common sense loopholes.

Quote:
A case just went through the courts that say movies can be edited for use if the content is offensive. Some Utah company was selling something to edit DVD content. The MPAA exploded saying that regardless of how obsene some material may be it shouldn't be edited as the artistic message of the film would be changed.
it had nothing to do with artistic expression but everything to do with copyright holders worried that if this loophole for decency reasons went through then other types of editing would follow behind. again the copyright holder is forced to be draconian. PS - the specifics were that the DVD player found offensive material and would skip over it without showing it, no actual editing of the content was done. what the copyright holders were concerned about was the DVD player that skipped over previews and whatever other ad content might be there.


Quote:
For TV shows the money has been made by the time of the airing, paid for by advertisers. If the show is popular they might be able to get more money several years down the road through syndication, but they can't count on that when the show is first aired.


like DGH said - bittorrent just makes that original airing worth less money. and the real money for the people making the show is made from syndication checks coming in for years to come. many many shows make a big deal when they hit 100 shows for that magic syndication number. Do you know that syndication is not a big deal in the TV industry or are you just theorizing that to support your argument ?
ZeoTiVo is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 01:46 PM   #104 (Print)
Stormspace
Disruptive Influence
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to Stormspace
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgh
I'd like to see the DRM implementation that determines that


LOL! Me too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgh
However, for any significant number of people who switch to downloading edited shows for a significant amount of their viewing, money paid at the time of airing will decrease.


True, best case would be a free offering on the shows website the week of the showing. I'd even pay a buck or two on some of my favs, but mostly if money starts to be needed, I'd just miss it and likely be less interested in the show. I can think of several shows in the past that are good shows that I never got interested in because it wasn't easy to get them or their was a conflict. Seinfeld, Friends, Lost, Desperate Housewives, and a few others. I actually started watching Seinfeld a few years after it went to syndication, but that was before TiVo when I was forced to watch TV live. I have enough available now that I am not exposed to stuff like like as their is already enough new stuff to watch than spend my time on reruns. So, it's very likely I'll never watch DH or Lost. OTOH if the heat had been off I might have downloaded these to watch and try them out.

The MPAA doesn't care if you watch a show or not, they are really not interested in what you watch other than as a means of generating ad money. They don't care of you miss a show, or if you want to watch them in order from the beginning.

__________________
180hr Series 2
w/Blitzz BWU613 NetWave Point USB
80hr Series 2
w/linksys WUSB11 USB Adapter
Galleon 2.1 on 260GB WIN2000

"No daddy, it's a 181 hour tivo" - Margaret
Stormspace is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 01:59 PM   #105 (Print)
Stormspace
Disruptive Influence
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to Stormspace
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeoTiVo
like DGH said - bittorrent just makes that original airing worth less money. and the real money for the people making the show is made from syndication checks coming in for years to come. many many shows make a big deal when they hit 100 shows for that magic syndication number. Do you know that syndication is not a big deal in the TV industry or are you just theorizing that to support your argument ?


From my point of view syndication means very little. I'm certain it means a great deal to the producers who end up with more money in their pockets for a show that has already been paid for. But for the fan watching the show now it has little value. I started watching Lost and found it intriguing, but due to conflicts missed a couple of the early episodes, so now I'll just pass on it and likely not even watch it later. FWIW they've lost a viewer. Same for Desperate Housewives. There is just so much new stuff coming on each year that syndicated reruns just don't appeal as much as they used to before TiVo. So now when my favorite shows end I'll likely switch to a newer show rather than go to one of these that might have been running a year or two since I didn't get on board to begin with.

__________________
180hr Series 2
w/Blitzz BWU613 NetWave Point USB
80hr Series 2
w/linksys WUSB11 USB Adapter
Galleon 2.1 on 260GB WIN2000

"No daddy, it's a 181 hour tivo" - Margaret
Stormspace is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 02:41 PM   #106 (Print)
ZeoTiVo
fantastic four TiVos
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormspace
From my point of view syndication means very little. I'm certain it means a great deal to the producers who end up with more money in their pockets for a show that has already been paid for. .


this thread is not exactly about your viewing habits though but about how file sharing can diminish the economics of of first run and syndication. I think syndication is a substantial part of the economic factor in how many seasons a show survives. The George Lopez show may have been cancelled but the network saw a ROI in keeping it around in order to make the 100 episode and have a viable syndication package. for many of the actors and behind the scenes workers - it is the syndication checks that give them a steady source of good income. many do not make the big bucks on the first run of the show or are just salaried people anyway. I do not think syndication can be dismissd from this discussion out of hand. It is just another example of how copyright holders have to keep fighting long after the content is first made public to hold onto the economic value of the content.


interesting though your take on past shows, one of the reasons I wanted a TiVo was to be able to catch up on past shows like Stargate I never was able to sit down and watch at the time they came on. I am watching first year of 4400 now from a marathon I recorded while TiVo is getting this seasons eps so I can go right into them.
ZeoTiVo is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 02:55 PM   #107 (Print)
Stormspace
Disruptive Influence
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to Stormspace
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeoTiVo
this thread is not exactly about your viewing habits though but about how file sharing can diminish the economics of of first run and syndication. I think syndication is a substantial part of the economic factor in how many seasons a show survives. The George Lopez show may have been cancelled but the network saw a ROI in keeping it around in order to make the 100 episode and have a viable syndication package. for many of the actors and behind the scenes workers - it is the syndication checks that give them a steady source of good income. many do not make the big bucks on the first run of the show or are just salaried people anyway. I do not think syndication can be dismissd from this discussion out of hand. It is just another example of how copyright holders have to keep fighting long after the content is first made public to hold onto the economic value of the content.


This thread is about where to download shows, a topic no one is currently discussing in this thread.

There is no doubt that syndicated shows make money for the producers. (Some where in the back of my head I remember hearing that actors make nothing from the syndicated show...but that may have changed) If you don't live in Australia the people downloading shows are those that have missed it or want to archive it for later. Since I archive my favorite shows I can positively say that recording and burning shows has a great deal of impact on whether I will watch reruns or syndicated rebroadcasts. If the downloader archives then it will affect syndication, otherwise they are just catching a missed show and no effect on syndication should be experienced. So the question is, how many people who download keep the shows forever? Unfortunately I think the number will be quite high.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeoTiVo
interesting though your take on past shows, one of the reasons I wanted a TiVo was to be able to catch up on past shows like Stargate I never was able to sit down and watch at the time they came on. I am watching first year of 4400 now from a marathon I recorded while TiVo is getting this seasons eps so I can go right into them.


PS: I did use the tivo to catch up on some Stargates. (My wife and I missed the season DJackson wasn't around. So we watched the oldies until we caught up.) But we had already started watching this one from the beginning, we just came back so to speak.

__________________
180hr Series 2
w/Blitzz BWU613 NetWave Point USB
80hr Series 2
w/linksys WUSB11 USB Adapter
Galleon 2.1 on 260GB WIN2000

"No daddy, it's a 181 hour tivo" - Margaret
Stormspace is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 03:25 PM   #108 (Print)
cynthetiq
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 320
actors make plenty on syndication.

Lucille Ball was the first to implement such a radical change in their contract creation.

Even commercial actors are paid by how many national broadcasts they get which is substantial. Cable is a lump flat sum. If you are interested in knowing the breakdowns I'll find them when I can.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Independent, either you're an ******* or you're not.
cynthetiq is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 03:31 PM   #109 (Print)
Stormspace
Disruptive Influence
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to Stormspace
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynthetiq
actors make plenty on syndication.

Lucille Ball was the first to implement such a radical change in their contract creation.

Even commercial actors are paid by how many national broadcasts they get which is substantial. Cable is a lump flat sum. If you are interested in knowing the breakdowns I'll find them when I can.


Is this a recent change? (recent meaning last 20 years. ) I remember a while back that the actors were not getting royalties from reruns and syndicated shows.

__________________
180hr Series 2
w/Blitzz BWU613 NetWave Point USB
80hr Series 2
w/linksys WUSB11 USB Adapter
Galleon 2.1 on 260GB WIN2000

"No daddy, it's a 181 hour tivo" - Margaret
Stormspace is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-20-2005, 04:18 PM   #110 (Print)
cynthetiq
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormspace
Is this a recent change? (recent meaning last 20 years. ) I remember a while back that the actors were not getting royalties from reruns and syndicated shows.

Residuals aren't new at all. It just is finally trickling down to the common people instead of just the heads and stars.

culled from 3 websites:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/R...s/residuals.htm
Quote:
When new distribution markets emerge, unions such as the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), the Writers Guild of America (WGA), the Directors Guild (DGA), and SAG negotiate for residuals in those markets as well. In the 1970s and 1980s, unions negotiated residuals for cable, videocassette, pay per view, and even in-flight movies on airplanes. In the mid-1990s, unions were fighting for residuals in new markets such as CD-ROMs and computer networks.

Residuals are a lucrative source of income, and thus a major source of contention between unions and producers. As Archie Kleingartner and Alan Paul point out in Labor Relations and Residual Compensation in The Movie and Television Industry (1992), residuals have played a major role in 18 strikes by the various unions. Low-paid actors working in television commercials often earn four times as much from residuals as they do from their initial fees. Series actors, who are paid much more for their initial services, still earn about 30% of their income from residuals. In 1990, total residual payments exceeded 337 million dollars, not counting residuals from television commercials.

Unions negotiate residuals with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), which represents most studios and independent producers. In 1995, the three biggest television networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) separated from AMPTP over a dispute regarding the status of the newer FOX network. The three older networks wanted FOX to pay the same residual rates that they pay, while FOX argued that it was not technically a network by FCC standards. At this time, the unions negotiate with the three networks and AMPTP separately.

Residuals are an important source of compensation for actors, writers, and directors whose works are distributed in an ever wider array of foreign and domestic markets. They are a major factor in the continuing strength of the various unions over the years.



http://www.geocities.com/Television...80_article.html
Quote:
In October 1951 CBS introduced a half-hour comedy called I Love Lucy and within a year it had the highest rating of any show before or since. The former Goldwyn Girl and B-movie queen in the title role had become an American institution, and at 68, Lucille Ball remains one. Her stormy 20-year marriage to co-star Desi Arnaz ended in divorce in 1960,and a year later she married comedian Gary Morton while taking charge of huge Desilu Productions. In 1967 Lucy sold Desilu to Gulf & Western for $17 million, rode out a movie bomb Mame, and endured the rocky maturing of her daughter Lucie, and son, Desi Jr. The last incarnation of her series ended in 1974, but the original is still in reruns after two decades and ranks as the most-watched sitcom in TV history. Lucy required a staff of 20 to handle her residuals business affairs even before 1979,[/color] when she succumbed to the personal wooing of NBC President Fred Silverman (at a six-hour dinner) and defected from CBS. This Friday she is scheduled to bow on her new network in a special, Lucy Moves to NBC. She will also serve as a consultant to the network on new comedy properties. Lucy talked with PEOPLE's Peter Lester about comedy, stars and subjects on which she has always been outspoken, like modern morality and her own family.


http://www.associateprograms.com/se...letter147.shtml
Quote:
Some versions of the story say that CBS didn't want to cast Desi Arnaz as Lucy's husband on "I Love Lucy," while others say that CBS was nervous about the strange new concept of three-camera approach and a live audience (which have been the norm for American TV comedies ever since). But whatever the issue was, Lucy and Desi struck a deal: they took a pay cut, which was made up for by granting them the residual income (yes, a 100% residual), a concept they invented - no-one was yet working on ways to make money from TV shows after their initial airing.

Then Desi invented the concept of the rerun, and the rest is history. The income from the initial airing of "I Love Lucy" is, of course, minuscule compared to the residual income. (These days, the approach to producing TV is often more like the initial airing is merely a preliminary activity required in order to develop enough episodes to syndicate the reruns - that's where the money is made.) This residual money enabled Lucy and Desi's Desilu productions to go on to produce things like "Mission Impossible" and "Star Trek."


BTW, my reference to you in a previous post above to apples and oranges to copyright law vs abandonware which is why *I* brought up computer games. It's been proven in court time and time again that if one does not protect their copyright then they have no claim. Another example of this is Tony the Tiger (Frosted Flakes) and Exxon's Tiger. Recently Exxon wanted to sue Kellog's for using a tiger that looked similar to Tony (IMO they didn't look anything alike) judge tossed it out for lack of protection for many many years.

Triumph the dog was sued by Pets.com because of the dog puppet relationship. I don't recall just what that wound up as far as settlement but we all know that Pets.com is no longer around, yet both pet puppets are.

Planet Hollywood sued a local Thai restaurant in Brooklyn for being called Planet Thai, which then changed their name to Plan Eat Thai. After it was proven that Planet Hollywood didn't protect their name as vigorously as it should they now are called Planet Thai again.

One can go back all the way to the "look and feel" laws that were created by the Atari vs. Magnavox, but if I continue I'll completely threadjack.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Independent, either you're an ******* or you're not.
cynthetiq is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-21-2005, 11:08 AM   #111 (Print)
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,483
WOW. A LOT of replies.

@classicsat:
I'm not saying that NO ONE should be selling music. If they want to sell music, they should be able to. HOWEVER, they SHOULD NOT be able to have the government cheating customers by having copyright laws. If they can make a profit on a CD that has no copyright law against it, then they are good at making a product that people will buy. Using force, and SCARING customers who download into buying shows that they have an overpriced/undervalued product, and that they need to make something that will appeal to customers enough so that they will not download/share it.

@Stormspace:
very true. I love the Simpsons. They have season 4 DVDs out, and they are now on Season 16. They are also HIGHLY overpriced at $50/season, which is RIDICULOUS. Maybe $20 with the Season DVDs coming out at the end of the season (like Season 16s coming out this week) and then I would buy them. Until them I will download TV rips or DVD rips.

@gonzotek:
I'm not saying that federal law should make them give away their stuff. If they can make money without a nasty, choice-limiting copyright law, then good for them. Any sport or hobby coasts money. Being a band is no different.

@cynthetiq:
Exactly. The movie and music industries are HARVESTING money out of our packets like a tractor harvests wheat out of a field. The field gets nothing in return. We get very little. They basically are stealing from us, not the other way around.

@ZeoTiVo:
If they can make money, then thats great for them. They make a few extra $$$ on the side of a real job so they can afford a new computer or big screen TV, or more musical gadgets or whatever. There is a site called cdbaby.com. They sell indie CDs and they are all like $5. They are a great site. Unlike the RIAA who STEALS FROM ARTISTS and like kicks them out if they can't sell ten bazillion cds, CDbaby has realistic expecations. CD baby lets them sell one cd a year, if thats what the artist can sell.

LOTR needed to rely on so many sales because they overspent, overspend, and overspent AGAIN. It DOES NOT take that much to make a movie. Now, they have the best cinematography ever, but look at some of the special features on the extended DVDs. It was reidiculous.

More later.

__________________
This new software is freaking me out
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime Activated 4/11/04
Bigg is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-21-2005, 11:18 AM   #112 (Print)
Y-ASK
Why Ask?
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Leonardtown, MD, USA
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeoTiVo
steal this book

yes grammar rules and whatnot are so the reason I type messages into a public forum. Bad grammar and punctuation that affects readability is one thing, having to point out the word whatnot which detracts from the direction of the thread is just as bad.


Man I thought you had a better sense of humor than this . Next time I'll know not to play around when you want to talk serious

Y-ASK
Y-ASK is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-21-2005, 11:30 AM   #113 (Print)
cynthetiq
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 320
Bigg you prove time and time again that because the price is "too high" you'll just "steal" it.

$50 for a season of The Simpsons 21 episodes are on the Season 4 DVD. $50 is unreasonable for 21 episodes? $2.30 per episode. If we were to be on the VHS system I may somewhat agree with the disproporionate cost of manfac to goods produced. I do get to see the costs involved in bringing DVD box sets to home use and it's still quite expensive from a cost standpoint. The DVD distributor has to purchase the rights to distribute in the home video market.

The "field" as you put it has been given things. They have been given fair entertainment in exchange for money. Media companies are collaborative efforts usually, moreso than any other industry. You may not like the price points, then don't buy the product, save up for it, or better yet, get yourself a higher paying job so that you can afford such things.

I also need to mention that even if you were a minimum wage worker you still have the option of RENTING the DVD set. Netflix provides that as does Blockbuster for a reasonable fee.

You obviously have NO IDEA what it takes to run an entertainment business or company either small or conglomorate if you say that it doesn't "take that much to make a movie."

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Independent, either you're an ******* or you're not.

Last edited by cynthetiq : 06-21-2005 at 11:38 AM.
cynthetiq is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-21-2005, 11:49 AM   #114 (Print)
Nfuego
Finally-My ugly mug
 
Nfuego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Springfield, Illinois
Posts: 1,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkalnin
Makes no sense to me for shows on ABC for example. Lets say I Tivo the LOST finale tonight, and one of you here missed it. So I transfer my show to the PC, then FTP it to you. It has everything the original had, including commercials. Now, how did the copyright holders for ABC or LOST suffer? The only thing that happened was that the person that missed the episode got to see it. How terrible.

I can understand how pay channels like HBO are a different story.


I understand how it is actually very silly, but one thing that is missing is MY LOCAL commercials. That is why I can't legally ask to have YOUR network channels in my lineup.

__________________
Reve. Tsop. Tseb. -Waldingrl
Nfuego is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-21-2005, 12:47 PM   #115 (Print)
dgh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg
Using force, and SCARING customers who download into buying shows that they have an overpriced/undervalued product, and that they need to make something that will appeal to customers enough so that they will not download/share it.


And I suppose I should be handing out cash rewards to people who don't burgle my house.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg
Exactly. The movie and music industries are HARVESTING money out of our packets like a tractor harvests wheat out of a field. The field gets nothing in return. We get very little. They basically are stealing from us, not the other way around.


Do you actually believe the stuff you post? You look at a product, check the price, decide it's worth it, pay the money, and someone stole from you???

Last edited by dgh : 06-21-2005 at 02:10 PM.
dgh is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-21-2005, 01:10 PM   #116 (Print)
Stormspace
Disruptive Influence
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to Stormspace
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynthetiq
$50 for a season of The Simpsons 21 episodes are on the Season 4 DVD. $50 is unreasonable for 21 episodes? $2.30 per episode. If we were to be on the VHS system I may somewhat agree with the disproporionate cost of manfac to goods produced. I do get to see the costs involved in bringing DVD box sets to home use and it's still quite expensive from a cost standpoint. The DVD distributor has to purchase the rights to distribute in the home video market.

I also need to mention that even if you were a minimum wage worker you still have the option of RENTING the DVD set. Netflix provides that as does Blockbuster for a reasonable fee.


I agree with you somewhat and $50 seems to me to be a reasonable price point for a season of shows. Certainly more palatable than the $100 the star trek seasons are selling for. We bought two seasons but just couldn't justify any more, they are just too expensive. OTOH the Smallville DVD set is great...I just wish music licensing was more lenient so that the original sound tracks could be included.

@Bigg
You know, no one should have their livelyhood be relegated to a hobby if they truely are exceptional at what they do. I'd rather have a full time musician making music 100% of the time than an accountant that composes in his free time. People who create works of art should be given the opportunity to be as prolific as possible during their lifetime, and if they can make a living doing so, then great. Otherwise we'd end up with a great deal of substandard works being made by people with little time to create truly great works. Creativity and inspiration don't come easy to people when they have to spend that energy working a 40 hour week. Course maybe that's where creative accounting comes from.

__________________
180hr Series 2
w/Blitzz BWU613 NetWave Point USB
80hr Series 2
w/linksys WUSB11 USB Adapter
Galleon 2.1 on 260GB WIN2000

"No daddy, it's a 181 hour tivo" - Margaret
Stormspace is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-21-2005, 01:23 PM   #117 (Print)
Stormspace
Disruptive Influence
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to Stormspace
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeoTiVo
So how do you create a law that allows for people timeshifting a show vs just getting the shows off the internet and not paying for cable or whatever. Who is going to go through them all to make sure they are in original form with no editing.


Sorry if this is a little late, I missed it in the first reading...

Well, this is what the betamax ruling addressed with substantial noninfringing uses. Of course we'd have to get a favorable ruling that people who download shows that are available in their region are not infringing, but using a third party to time shift the shows. In the end though I think the uploaders will be nailed for violating rebroadcast rights.

__________________
180hr Series 2
w/Blitzz BWU613 NetWave Point USB
80hr Series 2
w/linksys WUSB11 USB Adapter
Galleon 2.1 on 260GB WIN2000

"No daddy, it's a 181 hour tivo" - Margaret
Stormspace is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-21-2005, 01:31 PM   #118 (Print)
cynthetiq
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormspace
I agree with you somewhat and $50 seems to me to be a reasonable price point for a season of shows. Certainly more palatable than the $100 the star trek seasons are selling for. We bought two seasons but just couldn't justify any more, they are just too expensive. OTOH the Smallville DVD set is great...I just wish music licensing was more lenient so that the original sound tracks could be included.

@Bigg
You know, no one should have their livelyhood be relegated to a hobby if they truely are exceptional at what they do. I'd rather have a full time musician making music 100% of the time than an accountant that composes in his free time. People who create works of art should be given the opportunity to be as prolific as possible during their lifetime, and if they can make a living doing so, then great. Otherwise we'd end up with a great deal of substandard works being made by people with little time to create truly great works. Creativity and inspiration don't come easy to people when they have to spend that energy working a 40 hour week. Course maybe that's where creative accounting comes from.


I agree that the $100 is just too much for myself too. I don't like to pay more than $15 for a DVD personally, but will sometimes purchase a one off for more if it's an import or hard to find like Criterion Editions. Sometimes I even buy used DVDs for those that I just want to fill into my collection and don't care about the quality of the disc or case.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Independent, either you're an ******* or you're not.
cynthetiq is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-21-2005, 03:42 PM   #119 (Print)
ZeoTiVo
fantastic four TiVos
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Y-ASK
Man I thought you had a better sense of humor than this . Next time I'll know not to play around when you want to talk serious

Y-ASK


sorry - did not mean to come off sounding so grumpy, guess it is a gift
ZeoTiVo is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 06-21-2005, 04:42 PM   #120 (Print)
dgh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormspace
I agree with you somewhat and $50 seems to me to be a reasonable price point for a season of shows. Certainly more palatable than the $100 the star trek seasons are selling for. We bought two seasons but just couldn't justify any more, they are just too expensive.


You got me thinking about the "Price of Star Trek"

Back when it (the original generation) was originally on, I wanted to archive some shows because I thought I'd never see it again. (Really it seemed likely at the time - it was doing horribly in first run and didn't "take off" until syndication. It was cancelled after the second season but uncancelled after a letter-writing campaign.)

Back then there were early video tape machines but they cost $3300 ($19,300 in inflation-adjusted dollars.). The video tapes were also expensive and held 30 minutes of B&W. So I used a cassette audio tape recorder which cost "only $50" ($292 in today's dollars) and audio cassettes that cost $4.75 ($28 in today's dollars.) But audio-only Star Trek's weren't that exciting so I only recorded 5 episodes and never listened to them. (Turned out to be a false alarm about disappearing anyway.)

By the late 70s, you could get a VCR for about $900 ($2400 in today's dollars) and record on tapes that cost $20-$30 ($60-$90 in today's dollars). You could get 2 episodes on a tape then so you were at $30-$45 per episode of awful VHS. A small number of prerecorded VHS tapes were available then with $99.99 ($300 today) being the most common price.

Today you can buy Star Trek Episodes that look really good, and are licensed (not do-it-yourself) for about $3.

Now that may still be expensive for your taste, which is fine, but next time you hear someone warning you that MPAA is going to take over the world and make you pay your annual salary to watch a bad sitcom, just remember that the trend has been the opposite.
dgh is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
 
Forum Jump
Thread Tools

Go Back  TiVo Community Archive2 > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(C)opyright - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not affiliated with TiVo Inc.


Spider History Index