Television Thread: this time, nonotyet didn't do it.

[dieblucasdie]

Hey guys, what are you all gonna do without TV Links? You can all come over and watch cable at my house!

Yeah, pollo is right.  There's several.  Alluc and SurfTheChannel are the best.  They are faster and have fewer broken links than tv-links did, but they don't have as much.

Or you could go the torrent route.

Also, yeah, Heroes is pretty boring this season.  But it's just boring/uninteresting as opposed to actively offensive like House.

[elpollodiablo]

Alluc is fucking awesome; I think they've got nearly as much as tv-links did and as you said, they're faster with fewer broken links. Also better quality vids for the most part.

Fucking stupid entertainment industry. How many more years you think it'll be before they finally realize there's nothing they can do?

[dieblucasdie]

What I don't get is how they can possibly charge the tv-links guy with anything given that it's other sites that are doing, you know, the actual infringing.  Unlike with Oink or P2P, this is a case where the "I'm not doing anything Google doesn't do" defense is right on.

[elpollodiablo]

Yeah I don't understand that. Which leads me to believe that they don't, either.

And therein lies the fundamental obstacle to any kind of progress on this issue: the executives don't really understand the technology, their lawyers don't really understand the technology, and the cops called on to enforce these arcane copyright laws don't understand it either. We recently had a colloquium here at OU about P2P filesharing (being that we were one of the first schools to get hit with those cease and desist and take this settlement or we will fucking sue your ass- letters) and half the people speaking at the damn thing didn't understand how P2P filesharing works. One of the moderators actually described it as "software that allows you to upload digital content to a website where it can be downloaded for free." WTF?
I'm not trying to have the filesharing debate again, but even if you're on the side of the artists/record companies, doesn't there come a point where you have to realize that trying to stave this thing off through enforcement is just shoveling shit against the tide? Same thing when it comes to digital video, or any other kinda digital content--there's just no way to stop it. It's widespread, the technology is easy to use, and most people don't consider it an actual crime. What's to be done in the face of something like that? Nothing! You learn to adapt, or you die the fuck out.

[elpollodiablo]

I mean to be fair a lot of networks at least can see the writing on the wall; that's why we're able to stream episodes right on their websites. Which I think is great! I've got no problem sitting through a few commercials if it means I don't have to go to the hassle of downloading/finding a suitable stream on a pirate site.

[dieblucasdie]

It's also particularly annoying in the case of TV shows, where yuppies with TiVos are perfectly free to do what bittorrenters get in trouble for.

The TV networks have generally acted more sensibly than the RIAA, though.  They only shut down the most brazen sites, and are slow to do even that.  And they're actually exploring a lot of alternative net-based options, both free and pay.  I think the difference is that TV shows have been on an ad-based model all along, and are used to not getting paid by their fans.  

Eventually, cheaper cable and ondemand, shows streaming on the net, and cheaper Tivos with bigger hdds are going to make the TV-piracy thing moot anyway, and good on them.

xpost

edit:  OH and, a huge difference is that, to my knowledge, there's not been an individual user sued over TV copyright infringement.  They just shut down the sites.  Movies, yes, but TV no.

[DCDave]

Can you explain what yuppies with TiVos do that Bit-Torrenters get into trouble for?  I imagine you'll just Shia LaBeouf this question, though.

[dieblucasdie]

Watching TV shows at their leisure without commercials.

With network TV at least, the issue has always been ad revenue more than having a copy of the show on your hard drive.  When TiVo first came out, there was craziness with threats of legal action, etc.  The networks and cable providers, to their credit, decided it was better to incorporate it than to fight it.  And, as I said, they're working on doing the same with streaming-net stuff.

If you don't pay for cable/premium and you're torrenting the shows you're obviously infringing, though.

[elpollodiablo]

Yeah, but who cares?

[dieblucasdie]

I *will* say that who are really hurt by it are premium cable shows.  10 years ago "Weeds" and "Dexter"  would've gotten a whole bunch of people to sign up for Showtime.

edit:  And yeah, Dave, I was goofin' by saying "yuppies."  I know very well that TiFauxs are pretty damn affordable these days and most people getting a new cable hookup will be able to spring for them.  They just haven't gotten affordable enough for *me* yet.

[elpollodiablo]

Cable itself is still fucking outrageously overpriced! We did a month demo of Time Warner digital recently, and while it was nice, I wasn't about to shell out $70/mo. for that shit, especially not when I can watch everything I want for free with a little bit of hassle.

[dieblucasdie]

Yeah, I agree.  But you're going to see that start to come down now that they're letting in some competition. 

I mean, hopefully.  I worry that they'll break up the Comcast monopoly just to give AT&T a new monopoly, but there ya go.

edit:  Also, there's the whole "no more analog TV in 2009" thing, so if they can make it more affordable, I'd imagine you'll see a bunch of new cable subscribers when that happens.

[elpollodiablo]

I mean, I think $20-30/mo. is reasonable for basic cable, and I'd gladly pay it. But packages from TWC start at $60. No way.

[lastclearchance]

I *will* say that who are really hurt by it are premium cable shows.  10 years ago "Weeds" and "Dexter"  would've gotten a whole bunch of people to sign up for Showtime.

I wonder to what extent (though obviously nowhere near "fully") this is compensated for by DVD sales.

[Andrew_TSKS]

Also, there's the whole "no more analog TV in 2009" thing

The bill also would provide $3 billion to help millions of Americans buy digital-to-analog converter boxes for their older television sets — so those consumers will continue to receive a signal once the switch is made permanent.

are you FUCKING KIDDING ME? we can't handle providing health care for underprivileged children but we can spend THREE BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS on making sure people have DIGITAL CONVERTER BOXES for their fucking TELEVISIONS? what kind of fucked up world do i live in here? no socialized medicine, that would be communist, but socialized television? SURE! LET'S SET THAT RIGHT THE FUCK UP!

this seriously bothers me more than anything has in a long time.

[dieblucasdie]

Well, and in the case of "Weeds," each of the last two seasons Showtime leaked preair episodes to the torrent sites themselves in order to drum up interest.

xpost with TSKS.  They won't spend the $3 Billion.  Those are basically vouchers for people who can't afford to pay for the new boxes themselves.  Most won't know about the vouchers.  Most people will just buy new TVs or go on cable if they can.

[Andrew_TSKS]

I *will* say that who are really hurt by it are premium cable shows.  10 years ago "Weeds" and "Dexter"  would've gotten a whole bunch of people to sign up for Showtime.

I wonder to what extent (though obviously nowhere near "fully") this is compensated for by DVD sales.

well, showtime would probably get watched more often than when those programs are on if people subscribed to it. but if they're just buying the dvds, that doesn't happen. so you don't have people becoming used to getting their programming and starting to see it as a necessity the way people did when hbo started to get lots of sex and the city/the sopranos/whatever customers. and then you don't get people crossing over to other shows on the same network.

blucas, i see what you're saying but i think the fact that the government is earmarking that money at all stinks to high heaven. that should not happen.

[dieblucasdie]

I don't know; poor people should still be able to watch their TVs.  It's less of a waste of money than, say, abstinence-only education.

Also this switch is one of those technological infrastructure things that has to happen sooner or later.  And hey, for once the government is actually taking care of it *before* it's a problem!

[Greg Nog]

Also this switch is one of those technological infrastructure things that has to happen sooner or later.

No it fucking doesn't.

[Andrew_TSKS]

i could condone $3 billion for the poor of america to watch their tvs if they were already being provided with food, shelter, health care, and education to the best of our government's ability, but we both know that's not the case.

[G.C.R]

uh, still more important to be able to go to the doctor when you need to than it is to watch your TV.

oh x post

[dieblucasdie]

False dilemma to the max.

Taking away that money wouldn't get poor people healthcare.  They will still have no healthcare.  They would also have no TV.

[Andrew_TSKS]

no dude, this is not a false dilemma. granted, the powers that be are not going to spend that money well no matter what, but while i'm sitting here talking about what money should be spent on, i can suggest many things that would be a better use of $3 billion, and while those things are not being funded i do not want to see analog-to-digital converter boxes for televisions funded. i oppose that use of my tax money. sorry.

[dieblucasdie]

You can say, "Why do that when we don't have universal healthcare?!?!" about any government expenditure.  $$$$ is not holding back healthcare, political will is.

[DCDave]

no dude, this is not a false dilemma. granted, the powers that be are not going to spend that money well no matter what, but while i'm sitting here talking about what money should be spent on, i can suggest many things that would be a better use of $3 billion, and while those things are not being funded i do not want to see analog-to-digital converter boxes for televisions funded. i oppose that use of my tax money. sorry.

Medicare and medicaid?  Healthcare tax credits?  3 billion on healthcare is $10 per person of healthcare.  I am pretty sure Medicare, Medicaid, and tax expenditures on healthcare total that in a week. We spent 5 billion PER WEEK on Medicare alone.  So I guess that 3 billion that we're spending on converter boxes is a week of healthcare.

What bothers me, Andrew, is your willingness to be outraged without any concept of the baseline statistics.