TV online - legally
Afternoons with Amit: How to watch TV online…legally
See, that’s the kicker - doing it legally. Anyone can find illegal TV. Given the option, though, I’d much rather support the companies creating these shows by going the legal route. If that means I have to put up with four 30-second commercials, I’m okay with that. Just don’t skimp on the quality, and make it easy to navigate.
Amit puts a description of each along with his preferences, but here’s the basic list:
- Hulu - currently in private beta, but looks like a good option from NBC
- Veoh
- MSN Video
- Fox on Demand
- ABC
- CBS Innertube
- NBC
That’s it for his list. If anyone knows of other free, legal outlets for TV shows online, post a link.
Technorati Tags: free TV
Tags: online, tv, video
Loading ...
January 8th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Anyone can find illegal TV
What exactly is ‘illegal TV’? My favorite way to catch up on a show is to download the torrent from http://www.eztv.it. Using the torrent I can download someone’s copy of the show, typically recorded from a sat. tv feed. Would you call that illegal?
[Reply to this comment]
January 8th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Can I answer my own post? Well I’m gonna.
Sorry, the first time I read the post I don’t think I processed the meaning of ‘online’ vs. offline p2p downloads.
Dave
[Reply to this comment]
January 8th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Well, yeah, I would call eztv p2p downloads illegal because they are a mass distribution of content created with the intent of supporting an individual or business without the consent or benefit of that business or individual.
I can rationalize it to myself all I want (and I am capable of doing it very successfully), but in the end, yeah, it ain’t legal.
If I use one of those systems I’m getting the enjoyment, for free, of something that was intended to provide revenue for somebody. I’m further denying them the ability to receive ad revenue for the enjoyment they provide me, because I’m choosing to use a distribution/procurement method that is not responsible to the content creator/provider.
Should it be legal? That’s a whole different question. The current system sure is broke, though.
[Reply to this comment]
January 9th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Well Jeff, what law is being broken? It has been settled law for over twenty years that time-shifting is an allowable fair use under U.S. copyright law (re: Sony Betamax case). Do you have citation for that first paragraph, or does it just sound good?
You say this;
“..I’m getting the enjoyment, for free, of something that was intended to provide revenue for somebody”
Did they not receive their revenue when the show was broadcast? Will they not receive additional revenue when/if they re-broadcast the show?
Then you move on to this astounding sentence (which if I might add must make the stuffed shirts very proud of your worker-bee/consumer-drone behavior)
I’m further denying them the ability to receive ad revenue for the enjoyment they provide me, because I’m choosing to use a distribution/procurement method that is not responsible to the content creator/provider.
You haven’t denied anyone anything. In choosing to obtain a tv show via download you’re simply watching broadcast material timeshifted from it’s original broadcast date.
Of course I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if you also think it is illegal to watch a show previously recorded on a vcr tape. What if you obtained the tape from a friend? That is not behavior in need of rationalizing, and it is not illegal.
This post is not legal tender, but carries an intrinsic value of $0.02.
Dave
[Reply to this comment]
January 9th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Personal use of time-shifting is no problem. The problem is in distribution.
If you were mass producing video tapes of a show and delivering them to all your friends or anyone who stopped by and asked for it, I think a case could be made that what you were doing was illegal (unless, perhaps, you included the commercials from the broadcast, though I’m not sure about that).
The whole system of royalties is based on creators of a work being compensated any time a copy of their creation is publicly distributed. There could probably be some legal wrangling around what exactly constitutes “publicly” — is that 1 person? 5 people? 30? 100? — but under the current system that’s where the issue lies.
In effect, though from a different perspective, this is exactly what the writer’s strike is about.
So time-shifting is not the issue, it’s distribution that’s at the heart of the matter.
[Reply to this comment]
January 9th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Distribution, huh?
The whole system of royalties is based on creators of a work being compensated any time a copy of their creation is publicly distributed.
I think this is absolutely false. Again do you have a citation? Royalties are simply a reimbursement scheme between a licensee and licensor. The royalties are specified in a license agreement. It does not, as you suggest, apply anytime a public distribution occurs (e.g. fair use for satire, academic citation, etc. are all examples of public distribution for which a license agreement is not required) I, as the end user downloading/sharing previously broadcast material, have not entered into any license agreement. Thus any use by me of the copyrighted material must fall under fair use, which we have agreed does.
Is it legal to save shows with a Tivo? A free, user supported tv download site is nothing more than my super-sized personal Tivo. That is, it is a digital medium for saving broadcast material for later viewing. There is no mass production of copies. Nor is there an intent to deny or circumvent the rights of the copyright holder.
Make no mistake, ABC, NBC, etc could all be deriving revenue streams from online downloads, but they choose not to (or they offer a substitute less desirable to the marketplace). But just because their current business model is failing it doesn’t mean the thing(s) replacing it is illegal.
You are correct that the current writer’s strike touches on some of these issues. But that is a concern between the content creators and the copyright holders. Neither the site hosting a previously broadcast tv show or the downloader of such a show are engaged in activity that violates the rights of the copyright holder. You could also state this as: The rights of the copyright holder (and indeed the value of said copyright) remain intact regardless of personal, non-commercial, download activity.
Beer!
Dave
[Reply to this comment]
January 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
First off, no, I don’t have any citations. I’m working from what I remember of reading similar conversations between writers/musicians (note, I’m not including studio representatives, but the original creators of a work), and the people arguing your position. And at the moment I’m too lazy to go look up the citations (and that’s not likely to change).
heh… Fair use: from what I remember, that only applies in certain instances, including, as you said, satire, academic citation, etc., but never includes the full, unedited release of a work without any analysis. In other words, if you’re going to call it fair use, you’ve got to be doing something with it other than sitting there and watching it.
I actually do have a couple good references for fair use somewhere. If I run across them I’ll post ‘em.
Make no mistake, ABC, NBC, etc could all be deriving revenue streams from online downloads, but they choose not to (or they offer a substitute less desirable to the marketplace).
Totally agree.
But just because their current business model is failing it doesn’t mean the thing(s) replacing it is illegal.
That’s not my argument. The failing business model has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the different unsanctioned distribution methods. The legality of the situation can be determined whether the existing business model is thriving or dead.
Is it legal to save shows with a Tivo?
Yes.
A free, user supported tv download site is nothing more than my super-sized personal Tivo.
No. I disagree. But in any event it’s irrelevant. See below.
There is no mass production of copies.
Just because the copy is digital and not physical does not mean it is not a copy. Once you’ve made a copy it exists in (at least) two hard drives. For p2p to work efficiently, there have to be multiple copies out there, therefore it exists on the premise of mass production.
Nor is there an intent to deny or circumvent the rights of the copyright holder.Intent is irrelevant. The effect is exactly that.
Royalties are simply a reimbursement scheme between a licensee and licensor. The royalties are specified in a license agreement. … I, as the end user downloading/sharing previously broadcast material, have not entered into any license agreement.
Yep. To be a legally licensed distribution, the licensee (i.e., distributor) must be given permission, usually for a fee structure, by the licensor (i.e., content owner) to perform the distribution. The distributor will normally pass the cost for that license on to their customer (i.e., you, the end user), though I suppose that’s not a necessary part of the formula if the distributor can handle the charge on their own or can make it up with advertising.
I’m pretty sure that licensee agreement doesn’t exist with eztv, for example.
[Reply to this comment]
January 9th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
but never includes the full, unedited release of a work without any analysis.
Again, I think you are just wrong/confused about fair use. Read up on the previously referenced Betamax case. It is absolutely allowed to make a complete copy and do nothing but sit there and watch it. Perhaps there is some wiggle room in your inclusion of the word ‘release’, but for the downloads we’ve been discussing the release was the broadcast of the show. Download sites are not ‘releasing’ the show. The release has happened and now fair use applies.
Nor is there an intent to deny or circumvent the rights of the copyright holder. “Intent is irrelevant. The effect is exactly that.”
Fine intent is irrelevant. But what right is circumvented? What right is denied? My point, obviously, is that the copyright holder have all of their rights intact.
I’m pretty sure that licensee agreement doesn’t exist with eztv, for example.
You have yet to make the case that an agreement is required. To make this case you would first have to prove that copyright infringement is taking place, and as I’ve advocated previously any copies made (via use of eztv services) would be covered under fair use. So how is the copyright infringed?
[Reply to this comment]
January 9th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hey guys - I’m the one that originally wrote the article and just want to explain why I call it “legal”. These sites all have permission from the copyright holders (since most of the sites are the original copyright holders) to air the show online. Other sites may air the show online, but will receive cease and desist letters from the networks since they don’t have this permission.
FYI - Hulu (now distributed through Veoh, MSN Video, and FanCast) includes both NBC (and affilates) and FOX (and affiliates).
Coming back to downloading torrents of tv shows, I haven’t seen a case yet against people downloading TV shows, but I guarantee you that there is a team of lawyers trying to figure out a way to go after this area. For example:
Is it illegal if the show you are downloading was ripped from a DVD as opposed to just recorded off TV? So if this is and regular TV recordings aren’t, what’s the line? Quality? Source?
Is it illegal to download a torrent of sports broadcast (you know where they say you can’t re-broadcast without expressed written permission)? This one depends on your definition of re-broadcasting. Is making the file available online the same as “re-broadcasting”?
I don’t think you’ll be able to base this argument off an analogy to music distribution.
[Reply to this comment]
January 9th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Well, see now you made me go and get a citation…
Here’s J. Michael Straczynski’s take on the whole p2p thing. As a content owner/provider, I’d say he’s pretty credible and makes a good argument on multiple levels.
I’ll get back to you on Fair Use later.
[Reply to this comment]
January 9th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
You know, I understand JMS’s position and can even agree with portions of it but he certainly doesn’t make the case that downloading a tv show is illegal. I mean he says it, but that doesn’t make it true. He also calls it stealing, but it certainly isn’t that. How he really comes off is as a whining unsatisfied content creator who is for the most part unhappy with the deals he struck to sell his claim to the copyright of his work. A sentiment that seems to be shared by many of his peers. Thus, the writer’s strike and looking for better residuals in the digital age.
I would encourage you to read the copyright articles of author Cory Doctorow. Cory releases the complete text for each of his novels under the Creative Commons license. He has documented how making his novels available for free online has led to increased book sales. Other authors also back up this claim (see Ryan Kelly and Eric Flynt).
This is article is a great start
http://www.locusmag.com/2006/Issues/09DoctorowCommentary.html
Of course wikipedia can be a great resource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios
Let’s try this blockquote thing again
Dave
[Reply to this comment]
January 9th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Okay, a few things:
1. Dave, just want to point out that Amit came and made a post a while ago that I didn’t notice in moderation. You might want to scroll up to check it out (post 9). Or not. Whatever. (Hey, Amit! Thanks for stopping by!)
2. I agree JMS can come off as a little whiny (or maybe defensive) but I can’t fault his arguments.
3. In Cory’s case, he’s made what I consider a great business choice, and has the data to back that up. Given that the content owners in question here have not made that same choice, however, it’s not relevant.
4. I went and read the Betamax wikipedia case. Makes exactly the argument I expected: that a personal copy of a broadcast show, for personal use, is fair use. No argument from me.
5. I went on and read the Grokster case mentioned at the bottom of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios%2C_Inc._v._Grokster%2C_Ltd.
As a result of losing that case (they were found liable for facilitating the infringement of copyright) Grokster posted this notice that sums it up well:
So all that backs up what I’ve said already:
Copying directly from broadcast for personal use = Ok
Distributing that copy = not Ok
[Reply to this comment]
January 9th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Btw, Dave… Kudos for slipping a Tick quote in there.
[Reply to this comment]
January 9th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Well Jeff since we’ve come this far …
… we need to cut to the chase. Are you going turn me? I gotta know. So far I don’t think anyone really knows what I’m up to.
2. I agree JMS can come off as a little whiny (or maybe defensive) but I can’t fault his arguments. I think you and I read the same thing and had different take aways. Imo, JMS is making the argument that in the current business environment content owners are getting screwed on residuals (perhaps proven, perhaps not). He claims, but does not argue, that the download activity to blame for said screwing represents illegal activity by someone (consumers?). The topic you and I are discussing seeks to answer the question: Does downloading a tv show from a torrent sharing site such as eztv constitute illegal behavior? See post 3 (you) and my reply/question in post 4.
3. In Cory’s case, he’s made what I consider a great business choice, and has the data to back that up. Given that the content owners in question here have not made that same choice, however, it’s not relevant.
It is relevant as a counter-point to JMS and his attitude of (paraphrasing) ‘I’m not getting my fair share of the pie’ point of view. He is NOT being excluded from ‘his share’ by the activity of broadcast tv downloads. The same applies to the content owners. Cory’s situation is offered as an antecedent to JMS rantings about Internet copying/sharing and how it is harming his ability to make a living.
Given:
4. I went and read the Betamax wikipedia case. Makes exactly the argument I expected: that a personal copy of a broadcast show, for personal use, is fair use. No argument from me.
How do you get to “I would call eztv p2p downloads illegal”? I know you try to make this distribution argument, but I don’t see how that applies. Downloading from eztv is essentially this scenario:
1) Alice contacts Bob seeking to make a personal fair use copy of the Show.
2) Bob introduces Alice to Charlie. Charlie has his own personal fair use copy of the Show
3) Alice creates a copy from Charlie’s copy.
Where and what is the illegality?
Re:Grokster
One of the main arguments that sunk Grokster was the majority of file sharing on their network represented copyright infringement. Grokster was unable to establish their network as being, on the whole, a carrier of mostly non-copyright infringing files. It also didn’t help that Grokster published the software used to access their network. In the end the Supreme court didn’t rule that what Grokster did was illegal. Only that Grokster could be sued for infringement. At that point it was a question of who had the deeper pockets to pay the lawyers and thus Grokster settled MGM and shut down.
So all that backs up what I’ve said already:
Copying directly from broadcast for personal use = Ok
The files available on Grokster did not represent fair use copies of the content. The files on Grokster were much closer to Amit’s hypothetical of sharing tv shows taken, not from a broadcast, but ripped from an authorized dvd copy.
Distributing that copy = not Ok
Again we come back to this concept of distribution of copies. No one has multiple copies that they are distributing ala your VCR tape analogy.
I mean, sure copies are being made, but if the use of these copies falls under fair use, then what is the problem? Using the scenario outlined earlier, do you thing I’m trying to argue Charlie’s’ fair use rights are transferable to Alice when she makes her copy? No, Alice has her own fair use rights to the content and what does it matter who made the first copy? The answer … it doesn’t matter one whit.
——-
Anyway it’s been fun. What’s funny is I never actually clicked through to Amit’s post until well into this discussion. You guys seem in agreement. I suppose the larger counter-point I would like to make is that the coming of corporate solutions such as Hulu, MSN, etc., is not the arrival, at last, of free on line tv sources. That’s been going on for a while. I would agree that it is nice to see the big corporations entering the space. Hopefully they understand that ‘Don’t Tread On Me’ is good policy. They need to compete with the value of their service and not the lawyers. But while they figure that stuff out. Please don’t advocate the popular alternative as illegal. These alternatives are on your side and care about you just as much the big corporations.
—
Will you be at the old guys shindig this weekend?
Dave
[Reply to this comment]
January 10th, 2008 at 1:42 am
This is the most excitement this blog has seen since inception…
Yeah, I already turned you in. I’m surprised the cops haven’t confiscated your computer already. Do me a favor… don’t tell them my IP address when they stop by.
RE: JMS - the screwing is definitely part of his argument, but I think his other arguments are valid as well. I’ll grant you that he doesn’t present any specific legal precedent. It’s a more anecdotal argument, and in my opinion, he makes a decent case. You obviously disagree.
RE: Cory - okay, I’ll grant it’s relevant to that portion of JMS’ argument. Still not relevant to the original question though.
RE: Alice/Bob/Charlie & “Where’s the illegality?” - There are multiple ways to attack this, really. One is the transferability of “fair use”, which you mention (and I don’t think I buy that Alice has her own fair use rights to content provided to her by someone other than the original distributor). (Btw, there’s also the whole argument that “fair use” is a defense, not a right.) There’s also the fact that it’s not just Charlie, Bob, and Alice… Charlie is acting as the TV Pimp for 1000’s of Alice’s simultaneously. He’s got his own office and is facilitating transactions left and right - i.e., he’s a distributor. I think you grant that. Where we differ is, does he have the right to provide a means to copy one person’s “fair use” copy to another person. While in a perfect world I would say “Yes”, in our current world I would have to say “No”. And to be honest, it confuses me that you are saying yes. Here’s why:
In one breath you are saying it’s not remotely illegal.
In the next breath, you recognize that if someone with some zeal about this took a look at your computer and realized how many downloads of copyrighted material you’d performed, you’d be worried about getting into legal trouble, which indicates you at least recognize the possibility that something might be untoward about it.
(holy crap, it’s 1:30 in the morning and I’m still typing this. I had some more to say about Grokster, and the nature of the distribution argument, and the arrival of the big corps [I mostly agree with you there], but honestly I’m too tired and my brain’s a little fuzzy. Maybe I’ll come back to it tomorrow.)
– as to the shindig: I think I will but not the family. My F-I-L birthday was set for the exact same time about 2 hours distant, so they’re going there. If I can get past the guilt, I’ll be at Mike’s.
[Reply to this comment]
January 10th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
(Btw, there’s also the whole argument that “fair use” is a defense, not a right.) There’s also the fact that it’s not just Charlie, Bob, and Alice… Charlie is acting as the TV Pimp for 1000’s of Alice’s simultaneously. He’s got his own office and is facilitating transactions left and right - i.e., he’s a distributor. I think you grant that.
Ok, it was 1:30 in the morning for you, but you either don’t understand how p2p technology works or your confusing the roles of Charlie and Bob. Perhaps a little of each? At any rate I certainly don’t grant, or ever intended to suggest, that Charlie’s role is that of distributor.
In the next breath, you recognize that if someone with some zeal about this took a look at your computer and realized how many downloads of copyrighted material you’d performed, you’d be worried about getting into legal trouble, which indicates you at least recognize the possibility that something might be untoward about it.
Please realize that my comments about turning me in was done tongue-in-cheek.
[Reply to this comment]
January 10th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
You’re right, I got Charlie and Bob backwards. I was using Charlie as an analog for the system of tracker/directory site/torrent application that acts as facilitator, which is the role you assigned to Bob - the person (program, function, whatever) that introduces the people who want something with the people who have something. Btw, it’s not a perfect analog, but then it’s not meant to be.
Yeah, I know you were being tongue-in-cheek (and were I not falling asleep at the keyboard I would have clarified that), but I really think that if a cop showed up at your door and asked to see your files, you’d be worried. You may think you have a good argument to make, but I think you’d be worried. If I’m wrong about that, then sorry for mis-characterizing you.
It’s pretty obvious we’re not going to come to an agreement on this, no matter how much each of us argues. I believe I’m pretty well backed up with my view; you obviously believe you’ve got a lock on the truth. It’s doubtful we’re going to sway each other.
It sounds like your basic point is “once it’s out there, it’s out there, and we can pass it around as much as we want”. And you back that up with Betamax and the Fair Use finding in that case.
My basic point is “personal use is personal use. You get to use it, not distribute it.” Stated that way, technically, maybe I’m not arguing that downloading a show is illegal, but I am arguing that uploading a show is illegal, and given how p2p sharing works, that distinction is irrelevant.
After all this, here’s one more thought (not an argument for anything, just an observation): speeding is also illegal, and we all know how well I follow the speed limits.
[Reply to this comment]
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:20 am
[...] TV online - legally [...]