# Its sad but I don't need Tivo anymore.



## GameGuru (Dec 12, 2003)

I just started thinking about this and I actually haven't recorded anything on my Tivo in about a year. I used to love Tivo but with bit torrent I can download HDTV rips of all my shows. We only have standard tv around here so I would much rather watch a crystal clear, widescreen, HDTV rip then my tv. I actually can't remember when I even watched TV that wasn't downloaded. I think I might cancel both cable and Tivo. I am moving to Ohio in a few months so maybe they will have HDTV there or at least digital cable and then I might Tivo stuff again but right now bit torrent gives me much better results. Maybe the networks won't kill Tivo but the internet will. Who knows.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)




----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

How are you playing the rips on your TV? Computer or burned to DVD?


----------



## GameGuru (Dec 12, 2003)

I have a Philips DVP642 that plays Divx but if I am alone I just usually watch on my PC in my comfy office chair.


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

If I had HD, I'd probably be going your route or with the comcast DVR. Even without HD, I'm using BitTorrent to stay current on Entourage (I don't have HBO), and to catch up on old seasons of shoes I'm just now getting into (Grey's Anatomy).

Do I need to go get an eye patch and a peg leg?


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

ClutchBrake said:


> How are you playing the rips on your TV? Computer or burned to DVD?


Up until last week I was converting to DVD and burning. Now I hook my MacBook up to my TV and watch through FrontRow. Either way works, and hooking up the laptop allows me to skip the transcode.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

That's okay. I use it enough for both of us.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

DVDerek said:


> Up until last week I was converting to DVD and burning. Now I hook my MacBook up to my TV and watch through FrontRow. Either way works, and hooking up the laptop allows me to skip the transcode.


I have a very nice HD set but my only HD source is my Xbox 360. How hard would it be for me to take a HDTV download of a show (divx, avi, etc) and rip it to DVD in a format my DVD player can use?

I love my TiVo too much to give it up but would love to see some HDTV. Specifically keep an episode in stardard definition and use the same episode in HD to compare.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

YCantAngieRead said:


> That's okay. I use it enough for both of us.


I am helping carry the load too! I thought I'd watch less TV during the off season, but now I am watching shows I didn't have time for when everything else was on!


----------



## buckeyenut (Apr 1, 2004)

Which part of Ohio are you moving to GamesGuru?


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

You I was thinking I don't any water anymore. I figure that would be just as hard to give up as my Tivo.


----------



## Scott Atkinson (Jan 19, 2004)

Weirdly, I don't care much about HD, even though I work in a tv station and we put lots of effort into making the conversion and getting people to watch.

My biggest complaint: hd sets are too big for me. I think of tv as a small screen experience. I don't want it to occupy as much real estate as your average hi def set does.

Most of what tv offers looks just fine to me in standard def, thank you, and I plan to hold onto my analog tivos as long as I can, or until there is little/no price differential for HD.

s.

note - I know describing a tivo as 'analog' is not really accurate, but I assume everyone here gets that I mean standard def/low res/not great looking.


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

ClutchBrake said:


> I have a very nice HD set but my only HD source is my Xbox 360. How hard would it be for me to take a HDTV download of a show (divx, avi, etc) and rip it to DVD in a format my DVD player can use?


You'd have to transcode it to a format that can be burned to DVD - like MPEG2 or something. But I think you'd lose something in the transcoding. I'm hardly the expert on these matters.

Also, playing it back from your DVD Player wouldn't be HD. Best you could hope for is that it would be Progressive Scan (if your DVD Player is progressive scan capable). That's why we have the emerging HD-DVD/Bluray battle!

I'm just starting to wrap my mind around the different codecs and such, so I'm not the best source for this...


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I have to say I've only resorted to watching downloaded shows when there was a glitch that prevented it from being recorded on my HDTivos. The whole bittorrent thing is a mixed bag at best, IMHO. I would never rely on it for a steady stream of shows, especially when you consider the number of season passes I have on my three HDTivos and one SD DTivo. I won't lecture anyone about stealing copyrighted material since I'm sure you already know it's illegal (and obviously don't give a rat's patooty) and probably not an acceptable topic for discussion here.

The image quality of downloaded shows is better than I expected but I wouldn't want to rely on a steady diet of them. My HDTivos record noticeably better quality than what I can get off the bittorrent sites. What's the point of going Hi-Def if you're willing to settle for less than the best quality available? The extra work involved with downloading the bittorrent files and then processing them to DVD just aren't worth the effort unless you only watch a few hours of TV per week. Even then you're at the mercy of the peer-to-peer network and may never get all the shows you want. 

The shows may be free, but at what expense? If you enjoy watching lower resolution videos on your expensive HDTV then knock yourself out. I fail to see the logic in it other than you're too cheap to pay to use your Tivo. If you don't want to subscribe to DTV then you might want to look into building a HTPC with a HD tuner card. OTA HD programming is still free the last time I heard (and legal, too).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

GameGuru said:


> I just started thinking about this and I actually haven't recorded anything on my Tivo in about a year. I used to love Tivo but with bit torrent I can download HDTV rips of all my shows. We only have standard tv around here so I would much rather watch a crystal clear, widescreen, HDTV rip then my tv. I actually can't remember when I even watched TV that wasn't downloaded. I think I might cancel both cable and Tivo. I am moving to Ohio in a few months so maybe they will have HDTV there or at least digital cable and then I might Tivo stuff again but right now bit torrent gives me much better results. Maybe the networks won't kill Tivo but the internet will. Who knows.


Sounds like you need a Series 3 TiVo. They should be out here in a few months and they will record HD programming from both digital cable (via CableCARD) and OTA antenna. Even if you don't have an HDTV you'll still get the crystal clear widescreen picture you're getting from BitTorrent without all the extra work.

Dan


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

DVDerek said:


> Also, playing it back from your DVD Player wouldn't be HD.


I can't f'ing believe I said that. I swear to God and everything Holy I'm smarter than that!


----------



## Atomike (Jun 12, 2005)

> I actually can't remember when I even watched TV that wasn't downloaded. I think I might cancel both cable and Tivo.


You should just shoplift the DVDs - morally what you're doing is exactly the same thing. Some may try to justify your actions, but it's theft plain and simple. I'm surprised most people here are willing to tolerate such a brazen admission of complete immorality.
Ah well. People just don't have the backbones they used to. 
Our society seems to breed a comlete lack of character and redeeming values.
I may be flamed for this, but at what point do you simply call a spade a spade? This guys a thief. Just rob a bank, and get it over with. It's what you are.


----------



## yunlin12 (Mar 15, 2003)

Too bad, goodbye then. Plus a few more comments:

1a) To you downloader's, I can't agree with your way of bit-torrenting everything. Shows that I had paid for but missed (Entourage on HBO or Lost on ABC, etc), I consider downloading OK. Out of curiosity I would download a new show on Showtime, which I don't sub to, just to see if it's worth getting. But to download in order to by-pass paying for TV, it's gonna come back and bite all of us in the end. Just like credit card frauds jack up everyone's rates at the end. Thanks buddy!

1b) Even if downloading were legal and ethical, the current technical complexity would mean that you are the only one who can watch TV in your house.

2) To whoever considering the comcast DVR, it bites. Wait for S3, or be prepared to babysit your DVR.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Atomike said:


> You should just shoplift the DVDs - morally what you're doing is exactly the same thing. Some may try to justify your actions, but it's theft plain and simple. I'm surprised most people here are willing to tolerate such a brazen admission of complete immorality.
> Ah well. People just don't have the backbones they used to.
> Our society seems to breed a comlete lack of character and redeeming values.
> I may be flamed for this, but at what point do you simply call a spade a spade? This guys a thief. Just rob a bank, and get it over with. It's what you are.


Too strong of the statement, but technically correct. Theft is theft with internet or without. You could steal cable or satellite signal just as easy as you can download individual programming. Shoplifting DVDs or robbing the bank should be left to professionals.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

I'm almost there with you.

My S1 tivo still has some use but at least half of what I watch comes from BT. I don't download much of it, very little in fact. I showed my neighbor how to use BT. He's so into it he downloads everything. He has a whole computer dedicated to BT. I setup a wireless router up on his network, I just connect to the machine where he stores everything and grab what I want.

You should look into what I did, build yourself an HTPC that way you can watch everything you download immediately without having to burn it to disk.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Atomike said:


> You should just shoplift the DVDs - morally what you're doing is exactly the same thing. Some may try to justify your actions, but it's theft plain and simple. I'm surprised most people here are willing to tolerate such a brazen admission of complete immorality.


Actually it depends on what shows he's downloading. If they're all network programs which are broadcast over public airwaves in his market anyway then downloading them off BitTorrent is no different them recording them with a TiVo. If they're cable shows, then you're right it is technically stealing.

Dan


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Actually it depends on what shows he's downloading. If they're all network programs which are broadcast over public airwaves in his market anyway then downloading them off BitTorrent is no different them recording them with a TiVo.


Not correct.


----------



## CavemanMike (Jun 30, 2006)

Before you pass judgment on BitTorrent users, remember that some people consider skipping commercials to be the same as stealing. 

Mike


----------



## tivoman (Feb 23, 2002)

Going to the bathroom when the commercials are on (live TV) is stealing?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Redux said:


> Not correct.


Technically it's all copyright infringement and NOT *stealing*. I was simply pointing out that from a moral standpoint it's not stealing if you're downloading something that was broadcast for FREE to begine with. If it is something that can only be obtained by paying for cable, then I'm inclined to agree that it's akin to stealing. But like I said technically none of this is stealing, it's copyright infringement which is a totally different offense.

Dan


----------



## segaily (Aug 3, 2003)

Even if the show was free we sort of pay for it by having to fast forward through commercials if you get it from bit torrent the commercials are already gone.


----------



## FlWingNut (Mar 4, 2005)

CavemanMike said:


> Before you pass judgment on BitTorrent users, remember that some people consider skipping commercials to be the same as stealing.
> 
> Mike


Who considers skipping commercials stealing? Skipping commercials is perfectly legal -- using legal technology and services I pay for (D* and the D*Tivo). It would be legal using a VCR after recording OTA, for that matter. That falls under "fair use." What does NOT fall under "fair use" is swiping shows off the internet. Even OTA shows have copyrights, and uploading/downloading them violates that copyright (you've heard the "without the express wriiten consent of Major League Baseball" disclaimer read during every game, even OTA).

You want to see HBO shows? Subscribe to HBO.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

I'm pretty surprised that some of you had never heard this widely reported tidbit.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

You can't believe everything you read as gospel. The CEO at Turner is clearly an idiot and has no grip on reality.


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

FlWingNut said:


> Who considers skipping commercials stealing? Skipping commercials is perfectly legal -- using legal technology and services I pay for (D* and the D*Tivo). It would be legal using a VCR after recording OTA, for that matter. That falls under "fair use." What does NOT fall under "fair use" is swiping shows off the internet.


Wow - that's a mighty high horse you just rode in on there. How's the view? Let's say I get CBS over the air and record them on my TiVo. At a later date, I watch them, skipping the commercials. Please explain to me how this is "stealing." Further, how is it at all different than downloading the same show for free, and watching it at a later date without commercials. The medium over which the content travels has changed (the internet vs. the airwaves), but I'm watching the same content you're watching and paying the same price you're paying.

Not only is this not "wrong" but I very much doubt it's illegal. If it is, I have hard time believing that law would hold up to any serious legal challenge.



> Even OTA shows have copyrights, and uploading/downloading them violates that copyright (you've heard the "without the express wriiten consent of Major League Baseball" disclaimer read during every game, even OTA).


Yeah, I've heard that. And If I took it 100% litterally it would mean I wouldnt be allowed to describe the game to any friends not currently watching the game because I'd be dissiminating a discription without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball. That language is to prevent someone from showing the game in a theater and charging money, or selling DVD's of the games on the internet...



> You want to see HBO shows? Subscribe to HBO.


You got me there. I knowlingly infringe on HBO's copyright to watch Entourage. Why? Because I can. Is it illegal? Yeah, probably. Is it the same as stealing the DVD's? That accusation is laughable for it's over simplification.

I sleep well at night. I consider myself a good person. I'm not a thief, and I am a man of good character. I hope my minor copyright infringement keeps YOU up at night though, I really do. In closing, I hope you enjoyed your pony ride.


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

segaily said:


> Even if the show was free we sort of pay for it by having to fast forward through commercials if you get it from bit torrent the commercials are already gone.


Oh, I see, so it's the fact that you have to press a button 4 times to skip ahead two minutes that makes skipping commercials with TiVo okay, but skipping them on a downloaded show stealing. Okay. Thanks.


----------



## mick66 (Oct 15, 2004)

GameGuru said:


> I just started thinking about this and I actually haven't recorded anything on my Tivo in about a year. I used to love Tivo but with bit torrent I can download HDTV rips of all my shows. We only have standard tv around here so I would much rather watch a crystal clear, widescreen, HDTV rip then my tv. I actually can't remember when I even watched TV that wasn't downloaded. I think I might cancel both cable and Tivo. I am moving to Ohio in a few months so maybe they will have HDTV there or at least digital cable and then I might Tivo stuff again but right now bit torrent gives me much better results. Maybe the networks won't kill Tivo but the internet will. Who knows.


Ok, bye.


----------



## nhaigh (Jul 16, 2001)

Legal or not Legal? Well I'm pretty sure downloading from the Internet is an infringement of copyright and illegal. 

That said I do do it. 

Do I sleep well at night? I do. I make it a rule that if I can get the material legally I will take that route. All shows that are transmitted in the USA on channles I actually receive I feel comfortable downloading. For example I do download shows that I missed but only if they are not repeated so I have no way to get them legally. If the show is offered on Itunes I'll get it that way. If however the show was on a channel I don't purchase then I won't download it.

If for example the show is aired in a foreign market and I have no way to get it here in the USA then I'll download that, however if it is available on DVD I'll get it that way. This is the source of 90% of my downloads.

To me Bittorrent is my last resort and used when I see the copyright owner doesn't want to charge me something for the material. If they did then they would have made it available somehow, either OTA, on premium channel, PPV, a download site that they sponsor (Itunes), DVD etc etc. I know this is not exactly true or honest but it is how far across that line I am prepared to step.

I'll will get it legally if I can.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

DVDerek said:


> Wow - that's a mighty high horse you just rode in on there. How's the view? Let's say I get CBS over the air and record them on my TiVo. At a later date, I watch them, skipping the commercials. Please explain to me how this is "stealing." Further, how is it at all different than downloading the same show for free, and watching it at a later date without commercials. The medium over which the content travels has changed (the internet vs. the airwaves), but I'm watching the same content you're watching and paying the same price you're paying.
> 
> Not only is this not "wrong" but I very much doubt it's illegal. If it is, I have hard time believing that law would hold up to any serious legal challenge..


It is illegal. You're wrong.

First, the modification of the original programming (cutting the commercials) and then DISTRIBUTING it is illegal. Whether you profit or not, it is not private home use once that other person allows it to be publicly distributed. He (she/they) has violated the copyright of the original program

Second, skipping commercials and deleting commericals are different. Skipping is "fast forwarding" through while deleting is a non-linear total skip.

Third, you have no POSSIBILITY of watching the commercials on the downloaded version. Maybe you fast forward through the commercials (which still isn't skipping them entirely) almost every time, but you still have the possibility of watching the commercials.

Fourth, the recording of that show originally (on your Tivo) gives that program's owners the opportunity at least to count you as a viewer. If you download it, there is no count ability at all.



DVDerek said:


> In closing, I hope you enjoyed your pony ride.


The ride can be very pleasant. This isn't robbing a bank or torturing small animals but don't delude yourself with poor logic that what you're doing is LEGAL. It isn't.

I download a pirated movie off the internet. I wasn't going to see it in the theaters anyway but wait for HBO so is it illegal? Well, you can rationalize it out but UNDER THE LAW, it is illegal. While the penalities are all weighted towards the individual(s) making the content publicly available, you're still participating in the crime. You are still taking a copyright violated program.

You want to soap box about pony rides and high moral ground? Be sure your facts are accurate first. You have no license, no legal right to download copyright material such as television shows broadcast by US stations. NONE. It *is* illegal regardless of what you tell yourself.

You can have a hard time believing whatever you want. The fact remains, you're wrong, it's illegal and your rationale is incorrect. You most likely will not be prosecuted, but just as the great majority of speeders are never caught either, that still doesn't make speeding legal.

Before making the soliloquy, it usually helps to have your facts right. It makes the pony ride that much more pleasant.

_ITV


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

DVDerek said:


> Oh, I see, so it's the fact that you have to press a button 4 times to skip ahead two minutes that makes skipping commercials with TiVo okay, but skipping them on a downloaded show stealing. Okay. Thanks.


 Actually, yes, if by "Okay" you mean "legal" and if you have recorded that show yourself on your Tivo.

That's the fact no matter how many    you put in your post.

Perhaps you don't understand WHY or perhaps you don't CARE but either way, you're still 100% wrong. If you want to comment on the law, it helps to actually know something about it.

What YOU think is logical or what you rationalize your behavior or others to be is not actually the law. When you become king, you can do it your way and use your logic and rationale. Until then, the ACTUAL law is what we should most likely use to determine legality.

And  because you don't UNDERSTAND the law is pretty silly. Perhaps the possibility exists that you don't understand intellectual property law and your position is incorrect? So rather than  at things you don't truly understand or smart-alecky comments about pony rides, you should do a google search on copyright law and actually learn something because your position, based on nothing more than what YOU think SHOULD be logical, is incorrect. You're arguing from a position of ignorance of the law. Never a good start when discussing legal matters.

_ITV


----------



## beanpoppa (Jan 7, 2004)

In the case against ReplayTV, the courts determined that it wasn't the act of skipping commercials that was illegal, so long as it was the end-user who was actively skipping the commercials. When an intermediary (ReplayTV, through their appliance) played back the programming with the commercials automatically ommited, then it was a copyright infringement. Hence the removal of the automatic skip, replaced with a manual button press to jump past the commercials.

I think TiVo has taken the more cautionary approach of not allowing a user to 'jump' past the commercials, and having them fast-forward through them, forcing them to view, at least in some form, the entire commerical. (undocumented 30-second skip feature aside).

If you download programming that you already receive via OTA/Pay service with the commercials, then I don't think there is any moral issue there. Otherwise, you are acquiring a product/service that is otherwise charged for, gratis. As for the comment about downloaders not properly being detected for ratings pursposes- unless you are a Nielsen family, no one knows what you are watching.



FlWingNut said:


> Who considers skipping commercials stealing? Skipping commercials is perfectly legal -- using legal technology and services I pay for (D* and the D*Tivo). It would be legal using a VCR after recording OTA, for that matter. That falls under "fair use." What does NOT fall under "fair use" is swiping shows off the internet. Even OTA shows have copyrights, and uploading/downloading them violates that copyright (you've heard the "without the express wriiten consent of Major League Baseball" disclaimer read during every game, even OTA).
> 
> You want to see HBO shows? Subscribe to HBO.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

beanpoppa said:


> If you download programming that you already receive via OTA/Pay service with the commercials, then I don't think there is any moral issue there.


 Your morality is yours to decide. Everyone is free to decide for themselves. The legality is pretty cut and dry. It is illegal.



beanpoppa said:


> As for the comment about downloaders not properly being detected for ratings pursposes- unless you are a Nielsen family, no one knows what you are watching.


 Not true. Even without being a "Nielsen family" your data is sent -- unless you opt-out -- to Tivo/Nielsen.

http://tonytalkstech.com/2004/02/06/the-full-tivo-nielsen/

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/newsreleases/2004/TiVo Agreement.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2004-01-28-nielsens_x.htm

http://www.tvb.org/multiplatform/multi-screen/Nielsen_TiVo_DVR_Measurement.asp

In the United States, users can request that TiVo block the collection of Anonymous Viewing Information and Diagnostic Information from their TiVo DVR by calling 1-877-367-8486


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

Okay, so without doing any research of my own, I'll take your facts as gospel and say that downloading any programming is illegal. I still don't care. Driving 75 on the way to work is illegal - it doesn't stop too many people.

Legality and morality are two entirely seperate concepts that occasionally intersect. I'm willing to overlook the illegality of something if I have no moral qualms with it.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

DVDerek said:


> Okay, so without doing any research of my own, I'll take your facts as gospel and say that downloading any programming is illegal. I still don't care. Driving 75 on the way to work is illegal - it doesn't stop too many people.
> 
> Legality and morality are two entirely seperate concepts that occasionally intersect. I'm willing to overlook the illegality of something if I have no moral qualms with it.


 Just don't confuse the two.



DVDerek said:


> I'm not a thief, and I am a man of good character.


 There you go confusing the two again. You ARE stealing. You ARE a thief. You just justify it. You may have no MORAL problem with the TYPE of thief you are (you don't steal money from widows and orphans so it's OK with you), but that doesn't make your theft legal.

I'm not judging. I just find it hilarious when people rationalize their actions as LEGAL when they aren't.

You want to steal intellectual property? Go for it. I'm not the RIAA or anyone else who would give a whit. But let's be REAL about it at least and OWN what you're doing. You steal, you're a thief. Pretty simple.

If you feel better with telling anonymous people on the internet that you are a "man of good character" then OK, feel better. But the "I'm not a thief" thing is just funny.

"I'm fine with being a thief" or "I'm a petty thief" or "I'm a thief when I need my dose of Urckle" or "I'm a thief but I'm good at it because I haven't been caught yet" would all be appropriate.

It's not complicated. You're stealing something. You're fine with it. I really have yet to meet someone who stole anything and didn't rationalize it in some way.

Maybe you should download Lord of the Flies, Les Miz, and Ocean's 11.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Copyright infringement is not theft.


----------



## TiVo Steve (Nov 8, 2005)

DVDerek said:


> If I had HD, I'd probably be going your route or with the comcast DVR. Even without HD, I'm using BitTorrent to stay current on Entourage (I don't have HBO), and to catch up on old seasons of shoes I'm just now getting into (Grey's Anatomy).


I've been downloading the "New" Doctor Who from the A.B.Multimedia-Scifi newsgroup, and I also use a Philips DVP642 to watch the XviD downloads. I "upconvert" these to DVD for a buddy to watch on a standard DVD player. I get 2 episodes per DVD with amazing quality! :up:


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

DVDerek said:


> Legality and morality are two entirely seperate concepts that occasionally intersect. I'm willing to overlook the illegality of something if I have no moral qualms with it.


I'm sure there are some moral codes by which that is true. Those associated with moral relativity, anarchism, sociopathy, etc. For the most part though, honoring the law is in itself a moral principle.


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

SeanC said:


> Copyright infringement is not theft.


Thanks. 

Some people don't get it.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

SeanC said:


> Copyright infringement is not theft.


Murder is not theft. Child molesting is not ice cream.

I don't see your point. Unless you mean to be saying that copyright infringement is not a crime?


----------



## GameGuru (Dec 12, 2003)

Why are some of you saying "goodbye" to me? I never said I wouldn't come to forums anymore. I love these forums. Just because I don't pay for Tivo anymore I should go?


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Not sure if you think it was directed at you or not, that reply and link were supplied for interactiveTV.


----------



## nhaigh (Jul 16, 2001)

SeanC said:


> Copyright infringement is not theft.





> "This statement, that copyright infringement was not theft of goods under the federal statute being used to prosecute Dowling, has since been interpreted by many advocates of file sharing as a declaration that copyright infringement is not "stealing"--*though the Supreme Court has never interpreted it this way, nor has any other court.* Rather, the Supreme Court made plain in its ruling that the Copyright Act already contains a criminal provision, making it unlikely that the authors of the statute being used to prosecute Dowling intended for it to cover copyright infringement in addition to theft of goods."


So are you saying its not theft or not ilegal?


----------



## HotStuff2 (Feb 21, 2005)

I rarely watch my TiVo anymore now that I have a 50" plasma HDTV. I just do the same, download anything I miss using BitTorrent, and play it on my modded Xbox running XBMC. I can watch true wide-screen content and *barely* tell that it's not "true" HDTV. 

I'm still waiting on the HDTV (non-D*TV) version of TiVo...but if it sells for the $500+ everyone says it will, I'll keep doing what I do now - and not spending a dime on it.

edit: Oh, and for those holier-than-thou types who say downloading TV shows thru BitTorrent is "stealing" - well, isn't recording something on TiVo to watch later "stealing"?  By your definition, unless you're watching the TV show when it airs, you're "stealing". Or do you mean that recording it with a TiVo is "ok to do", but downloading it to watch on a modded Xbox (or PC, or PVR, or whatever) is "stealing"? What exactly is the difference? Either way, you're watching a recorded program that was broadcast on TV. I subscribe to HBO; I missed Deadwood the other night. Rather than waiting for the Wednesday replay on HBO, I downloaded it and watched it Monday. Did I "steal" it? I pay for HBO, so no, I didn't.

Hollywood can't figure out a way to harness BitTorrent and downloading TV shows. If they could, I'd probably subscribe and buy them, because that way, I wouldn't get the occassional lip-sync issues that happen with TV rips.


----------



## yunlin12 (Mar 15, 2003)

GameGuru said:


> Why are some of you saying "goodbye" to me? I never said I wouldn't come to forums anymore. I love these forums. Just because I don't pay for Tivo anymore I should go?


No, we'd just be saying a lot of

"hey that new feature's really cool, ain't it GameGuru? Oh wait, sorry, nevermind."

It's all cool, sad to see the little fellow being put away that's all.


----------



## goman (Dec 16, 2004)

Bittorrenting for me is not convenient, and it is slow.

1. Those HD versions are not really HD.
2. I want to watch on my TV on a couch not my computer on a desk chair.
3. My Cox DVR is more reliable than bittorent.
4. The only way for me to get the bittorrented shows on TV is to burn them onto DVD. This is a long inconvenient process.


Saying all this I will probablly bittorent the last episode of Battlestar Galactica. I recorded it on Universal HD and it cut out the last 30 minutes or so. I have no other way of seeing what happened, unless I wait for DVD or I guess I could buy the Itunes version. But that is low quality and made for IPod. I don't have one of those.


----------



## yunlin12 (Mar 15, 2003)

The way I see it:

1) downloading stuff from channels one doesn't get == stealing (with caveat of allowing a one-time-free-trial kind of downloading)

2) downloading stuff from channels one gets != stealing, should be OK

3) Tivo stuff then skip ads, should be OK, the broadcast TV with ads subsidy system is outdated, intrusive, and need to change, now that we have the technology to do better


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

To me its not worth the risk of a lawsuit and related headache involved just to download copyrighted content without even considering the moral issue.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I think a previous poster made a valid point with a comparison he made regarding downloaded shows on channels you either receive or don't receive. If you download a show because you missed it and you receive the channel legally, I don't see the harm in doing so, even if the letter of the law says that distribution of copyrighted material without permission is illegal (the DMCA really is a stupid law for the most part but it is unlikely to be changed anytime soon). OTOH, if you download shows from channels you do not legally receive then it is theft, plain and simple.

Personally, I just don't understand the rationale of watching shows in 480i on an HDTV, which is exactly what you get when you burn anything to DVD. Someone said they can't see that much of a diffference between a downloaded "HD" program and the original. I say they need to get their eyes checked or return the piece of crap TV they bought if they can't see a dramatic difference. Chances are they have never made any adjustments to their sets and are still looking at the factory default settings, which are always way wrong for a properly calibrated display. What was the purpose of spending thousands of dollars for a set that will display 720p or 1080p if you keep feeding it garbage? Oh wait, is that more rationalization I hear?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> even if the letter of the law says that distribution of copyrighted material without permission is illegal (the DMCA really is a stupid law for the most part but it is unlikely to be changed anytime soon).


DMCA is completely irrelevant to the copyright infringement discussion.

Before DMCA, it was still copyright infringement.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

DVDerek said:


> I'm not a thief, and I am a man of good character.


*I am not a crook.*
---Richard M. Nixon


----------



## Scott Atkinson (Jan 19, 2004)

nhaigh said:


> So are you saying its not theft or not ilegal?


Doing what is being talked about in this thread may be wrong, but I agree with the poster who noted it is not stealing.

As I understand it, the law does not view intellectual property in the same way it views physical property, and the history of law making in this area is pretty clear - Congress and the courts did not intend to conflate the two.

If you stop to think about it, stealing doesn't even describe the wrong that is being committed. When a car thief steals a car off a dealer's lot, he reduces by one the number of cars the dealer has to sell.

OTOH, if I download a copy of, say, "Kill Bill" off the net, I haven't removed any copies of the movie from circulation. What I have done is kill a potential sale, (to me) which is why this sort of thing has traditionally been dealt with by lawsuits and civil penalties, rather than as a crime.

Scott A.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> *I am not a crook.*
> ---Richard M. Nixon


Only Nixon could go to China.

A person can be a criminal, and still have admirable qualities, even be of good character in many respects.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

> DMCA is completely irrelevant to the copyright infringement discussion.
> 
> Before DMCA, it was still copyright infringement.


The DMCA is completely relevent to this discussion. The content is being distributed in digital format, which makes it not only a violation of the DMCA but also copyright infringement. Distributing content via the internet was one of the primary reasons the DMCA was put into place. It's also one of the main reasons this board does not allow discussions of video extraction from a Tivo (i.e., DMCA and copyright issues).


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I can record a TV show onto a VHS tape, then give it away to anyone I want. That is completely legal.

I cannot record a show onto my computer, and then give that file to anyone I want. That is completely illegal.

There's a problem here.


----------



## segaily (Aug 3, 2003)

Arcady said:


> I can record a TV show onto a VHS tape, then give it away to anyone I want. That is completely legal.
> 
> I cannot record a show onto my computer, and then give that file to anyone I want. That is completely illegal.
> 
> There's a problem here.


I am not sure that recording a show onto VHS and giving it to someone is legal. You have the right to record the show and watch it later. Giving a show to someone else I do not think is completely settle law. In fact it is most likely not legal. You probably have not edited the show on the VHS tape by removing the commercials which may also make a difference


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Recording shows to videotape or DVR for personal use is legal. Distributing any such copyrighted material without express permission from the copyright holders is illegal. Why is it so many people are just not getting that concept?

Giving your friend a videotaped copy of a copyrighted program is not technically legal but chances are highly unlikely that anyone would enforce the law that governs such a process since it is a limited distribution. It's simply a case of it being legal because you didn't get caught. If you were to offer that videotape for sale then that would be another issue entirely. The whole idea behind copyright laws is to protect the copyright owners from loss of revenue by someone else selling their property for profit. Let's face it, the shows you watch cost someone a whole lot of money to produce and broadcast. 

The issue with downloading copyrighted material is the loss of revenue from potential sales of said material. Case in point - the OP is downloading programs that were broadcast on HBO. HBO and DTV or whatever provider rebroadcast that program is losing out on potential revenue from subscription to the HBO package via their service. That is the same as theft of service, however indirectly it is occurring.

The bottom line is that the ones that download and distribute copyrighted material can always dream up some sort of justification for their actions, no matter how deluded they are in their thought process. To air that opinion on a forum that is strongly opposed to theft of service and copyright infringement is downright stupidity and total lack of respect for what the community is all about. Just don't brag about your actions and expect support from the rank and file.


----------



## nhaigh (Jul 16, 2001)

Arcady said:


> I can record a TV show onto a VHS tape, then give it away to anyone I want. That is completely legal.
> 
> I cannot record a show onto my computer, and then give that file to anyone I want. That is completely illegal.
> 
> There's a problem here.


I don't think giving a tape to someone is legal. I'm sure VCR's fairuse only covers your own personal use. Even so its not the same. There is a big difference between giving one friend a tape to allowing several million people download a show you riped using BitTorrent.

I know a lot of people who download shows think the law is not reasonable for personal use however that does not make it any less illegal. I also download shows I miss etc. I also drive more than 55 mph. I do both and I know both are illegal and won't try and convince people otherwise.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

Arcady said:


> I can record a TV show onto a VHS tape, then give it away to anyone I want. That is completely legal.


 That is incorrect.

Beyond that clearly illegal act, the assumption you can make the tape in the first place is not necessarily correct either. Obviously, encryption circumvention cannot occur in the process because DCMA makes you a criminal, with very expensive fines, if you violate its provisions even if your activity is in itself fair use. More fundamentally, the original Betamax court decision was not applicable (specifically identified as not appellable) to non-broadcast/premium channels. Upper court language was broader, and you may or may not be OK; content providers pretty much folded their tent on the issue.

In terms of regulatory practices and enforcement, personal use copying even of premium channels is being tolerated as if it were legal. But there is nothing to stop content providers from challenging that and at any point and pursuing case law clarification that would allow effective wholesale prosecution of offenders. The fact that the big pocket potential challengers have employed business practices that tolerate and even encourage and even profit from time-shifting premium channels might present difficulties.

Basically we, as consumers (and companies that provide us tools) have pushed the limit on the Betamax precedent, and are acting outside the law and are being tolerated, for now.


----------



## Scott Atkinson (Jan 19, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> The bottom line is that the ones that download and distribute copyrighted material can always dream up some sort of justification for their actions, no matter how deluded they are in their thought process. To air that opinion on a forum that is strongly opposed to theft of service and copyright infringement is downright stupidity and total lack of respect for what the community is all about. Just don't brag about your actions and expect support from the rank and file.


FWIW, I've never used bit torrent, circumvented DCMA to copy a dvd I don't own, downloaded a song I didn't pay for, copied an album and given it to a friend.

But I think it's a far too expansive view of copyright to view casual copying as theft.

In fact, the notion of fair use itself is under attack, and all of us have a vested interest in protecting our rights.

An example: if I extract the audio portion of Bruce Springsteen's Barcelona dvd (which I bought and paid for) so that I can listen to the performance in my car or on my iPod, am I doing something wrong? Something illegal? Am I a thief?

Second example: I'm the news director of a small tv station. If someone didn't like our reporting, didn't think it fair, and issued a critque that used chunks of our copyrighted newscast, (without getting our permision) are they wrong? Are they stealing?

I would argue that in neither case is stealing going on, or that the actions are wrong, though clearly the first example violates the DMCA.

Scott Atkinson
Watertown NY


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

> An example: if I extract the audio portion of Bruce Springsteen's Barcelona dvd (which I bought and paid for) so that I can listen to the performance in my car or on my iPod, am I doing something wrong? Something illegal? Am I a thief?


As far as I'm concerned this constitutes fair use and should be legal. Whether it is or not is a matter for the lawyers to decide. The DMCA is not exactly clear about fair use when it comes to digital media, at least from my perspective. Copying digital media that you own for your personal use is not the issue here. I believe the law is on your side when it comes to backing up any digital data that you own. The issue is downloading and using copyrighted media that you haven't paid for.



> Second example: I'm the news director of a small tv station. If someone didn't like our reporting, didn't think it fair, and issued a critque that used chunks of our copyrighted newscast, (without getting our permision) are they wrong? Are they stealing?


They are definitely wrong if they used it without your permission and I believe you would have the law on your side if you filed a cease and desist order (or something to that effect). I would think of it as copyright infringement but whether it is considered theft is another matter.

I'm no lawyer and don't know the letter of the law so I'm sure someone has a much clearer understanding of the DMCA and copyright laws than I do. I'm just offering my opinion based on my limited understanding of the issues so take it for what its worth.


----------



## HotStuff2 (Feb 21, 2005)

goman said:


> Bittorrenting for me is not convenient, and it is slow.


Then you're doing something wrong. Of course, the more seeders and clients, the faster the download. I have a 7mb down / 512k up speeds, and get a 1/2 hour show in about 40 minutes, less if it has more seeders/peers.



goman said:


> 1. Those HD versions are not really HD.


I'll post pics from one of the recent shows I downloaded. XBMC upconverts to 1080i, and it is REALLY difficult to tell the difference.



goman said:


> 2. I want to watch on my TV on a couch not my computer on a desk chair.


Again, I use a modded Xbox running Xbox Media Center (XBMC) to stream the shows across my network, from a 200gb USB harddrive. I watch them on my 50" plasma HDTV while I sit on my couch. Seriously, for a multimedia center, a modded Xbox running XBMC cannot be beat. Not even by TiVo.



goman said:


> 3. My Cox DVR is more reliable than bittorent.


Like I said, you're doing something wrong then.



goman said:


> 4. The only way for me to get the bittorrented shows on TV is to burn them onto DVD. This is a long inconvenient process.


See my previous comments on a modded Xbox. It costs less tha $300 to do so, and the result is a VERY enjoyable piece of equipment I use more than anything else.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CavemanMike said:


> Before you pass judgment on BitTorrent users, remember that some people consider skipping commercials to be the same as stealing.
> 
> Mike


the judgement I pass is that all the easy trading of broadcast and premium channel shows over the internet to people who did not buy/license the content in some form to begin with is what led to the major push for making f**king DRM even more prevalent.

If people had just chilled on trading copyrighted shows around then DRM might not be something consumer electronic makers have to deal with and get working in the technology thus crippling it


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DVDerek said:


> You got me there. I knowlingly infringe on HBO's copyright to watch Entourage.
> I'm not a thief





> Why? Because I can. Is it illegal? Yeah, probably.
> I am a man of good character.
> laughable for it's over simplification.


I moved sentences around some but essentially this is what you said, just looked at from a different perspective


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

> I'll post pics from one of the recent shows I downloaded. XBMC upconverts to 1080i, and it is REALLY difficult to tell the difference.


Not with a properly calibrated display. I'm not talking about ISF calibration, but at least a set that's been properly set up with Avia or Digital Video Essentials. If you really think downloaded shows are as good as HDTV then you've wasted a lot of money on an HDTV. The best you will get is 480i shown on a 1080i display. You can't create pixels and info that simply is not there. I'd bet the output at 480i doesn't look any different than 1080i.



> Then you're doing something wrong. Of course, the more seeders and clients, the faster the download. I have a 7mb down / 512k up speeds, and get a 1/2 hour show in about 40 minutes, less if it has more seeders/peers.


Any peer-to-peer network has always been a crapshoot for downloading files. If you've been able to get your shows quickly then you've been luckier than most. Chances are the poster you said was doing something wrong was just setting up his bittorrent client the proper way and just couldn't connect to anyone with the files he wanted. I gave up trying to use bittorrent for anything I wanted in a timely manner because it's just not all that reliable. You can get 99.97% of a file and then nothing. The results I've seen just aren't worth the time and effort. Besides, I CAN afford to get my shows through paid providers so I do it because it's not only more convenient, but also legal. Some people do this sort of thing just for the joy of hacking. The rest do it because they just want to get something for nothing. I'm guessing you and the OP fall into the latter category.

BTW, a true HD show will be about 2-3GB at a minimum for a 1/2 hour show. The shows you're downloading are probably .avi files that are only a few hundred MB. That should be enough to tell you that there's a lot missing from the original content (and upconverting to 1080i isn't going to restore what's missing). I bought an HDTV for the best quality I could get. Feeding it low rez content is like pissing into the wind. But hey, who am I to judge? You know what they say about a fool and his money.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Scott Atkinson said:


> My biggest complaint: hd sets are too big for me. I think of tv as a small screen experience. I don't want it to occupy as much real estate as your average hi def set does.


 Well, if you insist on a small screen, you can get HD sets as small as 26", if not smaller. And those tend to be LCDs, so they actually take up less room than a 26" CRT. (And yeah, I remember when 25" was as big as CRTs got. I'm sure smaller HD sets will come along, too... but frankly the main point of HD is to let sets get bigger while keeping good PQ. The things that held back the size of TVs in the past were the bulk of CRTs, the inadequacies of projection sets... and the lousy PQ of SD when it was blown up to big-screen sizes.)



Redux said:


> I'm sure there are some moral codes by which that is true. Those associated with moral relativity, anarchism, sociopathy, etc. For the most part though, honoring the law is in itself a moral principle.


I'm sure there are some moral codes by which that is true. Those associated with absolutism, fascism, psychopathy, etc. For the most part though, law and morality have nothing to do with one another.

Ideally, law represents the moral consensus of a community. In practice, this is often not the case. And even when it is, it's possible to ethically dissent from the consensus.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> Ideally, law represents the moral consensus of a community. In practice, this is often not the case. And even when it is, it's possible to ethically dissent from the consensus.


I would say slightly differently that in countries that go by rule of law it tends that the bulk of the law represents the moral consensus - murder is bad - but the gray areas are easy to find - death penalty for murder

Copyright laws fall into this gray category - fair use such as moving from a DVD recording to an Ipod vs licensing by the copyright holder that wants to be paid for a DVD and/or a download to an iPod.

and yes you can ethically be on either side in such grayness. Still snagging premium channel content from the Internet so you do not have to subscribe to the channel or rent the DVD is not exactly in that gray area and will lead to eventual trouble just recording the stuff onto a TiVo to watch later let alone what I also would consider fair use of pulling it onto a portable player to watch where I want to watch it.


----------



## HotStuff2 (Feb 21, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> Not with a properly calibrated display. I'm not talking about ISF calibration, but at least a set that's been properly set up with Avia or Digital Video Essentials. If you really think downloaded shows are as good as HDTV then you've wasted a lot of money on an HDTV. The best you will get is 480i shown on a 1080i display. You can't create pixels and info that simply is not there. I'd bet the output at 480i doesn't look any different than 1080i.


Again, you'd be wrong. My 50" plasma HDTV *is* properly calibrated (with both) and downloaded shows from BitTorrent - which display in widescreen and are upconverted with XBMC - look great. Remember, people said that music files compressed with the MP3 format wouldn't sound as good as an actual CD; they were wrong. The same is true of downloaded TV content.



mr.unnatural said:


> Any peer-to-peer network has always been a crapshoot for downloading files. If you've been able to get your shows quickly then you've been luckier than most. Chances are the poster you said was doing something wrong was just setting up his bittorrent client the proper way and just couldn't connect to anyone with the files he wanted. I gave up trying to use bittorrent for anything I wanted in a timely manner because it's just not all that reliable. You can get 99.97% of a file and then nothing. The results I've seen just aren't worth the time and effort. Besides, I CAN afford to get my shows through paid providers so I do it because it's not only more convenient, but also legal. Some people do this sort of thing just for the joy of hacking. The rest do it because they just want to get something for nothing. I'm guessing you and the OP fall into the latter category.


I've been using BitTorrent for years now. Yes, some files do stall at the very last %, but ultimately, I get them finished. And my reason for getting them is neither of the options you mentioned. I get them because I missed the broadcast of the show, and don't want to wait for it to be re-broadcast. I paid for the channel, so I'm not "stealing" anything nor am I getting "something for nothing".



mr.unnatural said:


> BTW, a true HD show will be about 2-3GB at a minimum for a 1/2 hour show. The shows you're downloading are probably .avi files that are only a few hundred MB. That should be enough to tell you that there's a lot missing from the original content (and upconverting to 1080i isn't going to restore what's missing).


And an uncompressed CD audio file will be around 400mb per song - but if you convert it to MP3, it will be 1/10th the size and still retain all the quality (depending on the bitrate.) Same goes for video files. Welcome to the 21st century.



mr.unnatural said:


> I bought an HDTV for the best quality I could get. Feeding it low rez content is like pissing into the wind.


Again, you're simply wrong. I'm NOT feeding my 50" plasma HDTV "low rez content". I'm feeding it compressed HDTV content. With upconversion, it looks 95% "true" HDTV. Yes, some dark scenes do get artifacts, but the majority of shows and scenes are extremely difficult to tell the difference. I spent yesterday cleaning up, and today, I'll break out the digicam and take pics of various shows I downloaded (I'll post post the size of the file, pixel size of the video file, bitrate, etc.)



mr.unnatural said:


> But hey, who am I to judge? You know what they say about a fool and his money.


So if you PAID to get a premium channel, but missed the show you wanted to watch, then you PAID to not watch it. And in that case, you would be the fool who got spearated from his money.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

HotStuff2 said:


> Again, you'd be wrong. My 50" plasma HDTV *is* properly calibrated (with both) and downloaded shows from BitTorrent - which display in widescreen and are upconverted with XBMC - look great. Remember, people said that music files compressed with the MP3 format wouldn't sound as good as an actual CD; they were wrong. The same is true of downloaded TV content.
> 
> I've been using BitTorrent for years now. Yes, some files do stall at the very last %, but ultimately, I get them finished. And my reason for getting them is neither of the options you mentioned. I get them because I missed the broadcast of the show, and don't want to wait for it to be re-broadcast. I paid for the channel, so I'm not "stealing" anything nor am I getting "something for nothing".
> 
> ...


I find it difficult to agree with you regarding quality equivalence between formats with vastly different bitrates. However that's merely an educated belief based on what I've read. The proof would be to compare by listening to or looking at media in both formats.

FWIW, I once did a blind A-B comparison between an LP with no surface noise and a CD-R recorded from it and I could tell which was which; and no, the CD didn't sound better than the record!


----------



## segaily (Aug 3, 2003)

HotStuff2 said:


> Again, you'd be wrong. My 50" plasma HDTV *is* properly calibrated (with both) and downloaded shows from BitTorrent - which display in widescreen and are upconverted with XBMC - look great. Remember, people said that music files compressed with the MP3 format wouldn't sound as good as an actual CD; they were wrong. The same is true of downloaded TV content.
> 
> :


They probably do look very good, but if they look as good as the HD you get I have to wonder if your HD is not as good as it should be. What is your HD source? From my experience ( 6 people ) only 3 of the 6 actual got HD when the cable company installed there HD cable boxes. Two of them had composite cables running from the HD cable boxes to the HDTV. The third had an HD cable box that was set to output 480p. Some cable companies also do things like rate shape which can lower HD quality.

I am sure that your torrent files probably do look almost as good as poor HD but I find it very unlikely that they could look almost as good as good HD.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

> Again, you'd be wrong. My 50" plasma HDTV *is* properly calibrated (with both) and downloaded shows from BitTorrent - which display in widescreen and are upconverted with XBMC - look great. Remember, people said that music files compressed with the MP3 format wouldn't sound as good as an actual CD; they were wrong. The same is true of downloaded TV content.


Then you should get your eyes and ears checked or talk to a home theater professional that can show you how to tell the difference. You're downloading content that is highly compressed in a lower resolution format than the original and then copying it to DVD which won't give you any higher resolution than 480i, no matter how you slice and dice it. I'll admit, some downloads don't look all that bad and will do in a pinch but I wouldn't want to watch a steady diet of that crap when the real thing looks sooooo much better. MP3's may sound decent but they're still not as good as the original CD (and far lower quality than vinyl by comparison). MP3's suffer some loss, as all compressed formats do, but it is imperceptible to most.



> And an uncompressed CD audio file will be around 400mb per song - but if you convert it to MP3, it will be 1/10th the size and still retain all the quality (depending on the bitrate.) Same goes for video files. Welcome to the 21st century.


You must be listening to some verrrrrry long songs if that's the case. It's impossible for audio and video files to retain their original quality if they're highly compressed and downrezzed. Welcome to the real world.



> Again, you're simply wrong. I'm NOT feeding my 50" plasma HDTV "low rez content". I'm feeding it compressed HDTV content. With upconversion, it looks 95% "true" HDTV. Yes, some dark scenes do get artifacts, but the majority of shows and scenes are extremely difficult to tell the difference. I spent yesterday cleaning up, and today, I'll break out the digicam and take pics of various shows I downloaded (I'll post post the size of the file, pixel size of the video file, bitrate, etc.)


When are you going to wake up and realize IT'S NOT HDTV!!!!! You ARE feeding your 50" plasma low rez content. Wake up and smell the pixels. Glad you're happy because you are living proof that ignorance truly is bliss. 



> So if you PAID to get a premium channel, but missed the show you wanted to watch, then you PAID to not watch it. And in that case, you would be the fool who got spearated from his money.


The last time I checked, if you missed a show on a premium channel then all you had to do was wait a few hours or days for it to be rebroadcast. BTW, what exactly does "spearated" mean? Is that some sort of ritual whereby the viewer gets impaled on his own dull wit?


----------



## russwong (Sep 17, 2002)

DVDerek said:


> If I had HD, I'd probably be going your route or with the comcast DVR. Even without HD, I'm using BitTorrent to stay current on Entourage (I don't have HBO), and to catch up on old seasons of shoes I'm just now getting into (Grey's Anatomy).
> 
> Do I need to go get an eye patch and a peg leg?


I've been watching HD broadcasts on both my HD CRT and my non HD CRT and if you are not watching HD content just because you don't have HD TV, you are missing out. I think I've mentioned this a number of times.

The picture is much much much clearer even though you aren't getting the full HD resolution. If you have surround sound, you are missing out on DD 5.1. Also, there's the widescreen aspect that shows more.

So unless you have a TV that's smaller then 25" it might not be worth it, but if you enjoy watching DVDs, I don't see why you wouldn't watch HD content on these TVs as well.

That's one of the biggest misconceptions of watching HD content. You do not need an HD TV to enjoy some of the added benefits of these broadcasts. I've been doing it for over 4 years now... I'm still waiting for the perfect 50+" HD TV, but until then, I'll keep watching it on my 36" analog TV and surround systems.

Seriously, try it!


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

You guys still don't get it, do you? IT'S NOT HD CONTENT!!! It's downrezzed to standard definition or even less due to the high compression. Just because it was originally recorded from an HD source doesn't mean the end product you download is Hi-Def. It's not even close. 

If it really was Hi-Def then it would probably take you from several days to over a week to download a single one hour program with good connection speeds and lots of seeders. The picture just looks good to you because you're not seeing all of the noise artifacts that DTV and your local cableCo adds to normal analog source material. The fact is, standard NTSC source material looks better than what you're downloading. The sad thing is that you can't get decent NTSC programming from current sources that are being broadcast in analog or even from most local digital stations.

DVDs are authored using standard NTSC content, which is what you receive over the air as well as from DTV and cable, albeit at somewhat better bitrates (but not always). They just add a lot of garbage and compression that screws up the image quality. DVDs look so much better because you're seeing the pure NTSC source material for the first time. The files you get from bittorrent sites may have originated as HD programs but by the time they're seeded they're less than DVD quality and at lower resolutions than standard definition TV. They just look good to you because they originated from clean source material. Just don't delude yourself into believing it's anywhere close to Hi-Def because it most definitely isn't.

Check out some of the forums at Doom9.org, Afterdawn.com, digital-digest.com, and VCDHelp.com, just to name a few, for info on video resolutions, compression, file format conversions, and just about anything you want to know about digital video. You'll soon learn that I'm not making any of this up.


----------



## russwong (Sep 17, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> You guys still don't get it, do you? IT'S NOT HD CONTENT!!! It's downrezzed to standard definition or even less due to the high compression. Just because it was originally recorded from an HD source doesn't mean the end product you download is Hi-Def. It's not even close.


Have you thought maybe you are wrong? There IS downloadable HD Content via Bitorrent and it's not downrezzed to SD or less. Yes there is also that stuff as well, but I know a number of people who have downloaded in native transport stream of shows and no it didn't take several days.

But hey, everyone is always so sure of themselves these days and since it's on the internet, it must be true.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I was referring to what earlier posters have specified. There were specific references to .avi files of only a few hundred MB, which could not possibly be anything even close to HD, unless it's a 30-second snippet. I'm sure there is actually a smattering of HD content available on bittorrent sites (I never said there wasn't any) but it's few and far between. I don't monitor what's available on a regular basis but what I've seen on numerous bittorrent sites tends to support what I'm saying.

Download times will vary, of course, but it mostly depends on the number of seeders you can connect with along with the amount of bandwidth you have available. My comments have been directed exclusively at those who are touting that the stuff that is downrezzed and compressed is actually HD or at least "as good as the original". It is simply not true in the context of this discussion.

Most (but not all) files posted on the internet are generally compressed in one way or another to conserve bandwidth and reduce download times. Uncompressed HD programming is rarely hosted on P-P networks due to the amount of bandwidth required for file transfers. Unless you own your own server and have unlimited bandwidth I doubt that too many people are going to want to host such large files because it will raise a big red flag with their ISP.

Video files tend to be converted from whatever native format they originated in to something that is far smaller than what it started out to be. I have downloaded files that claimed to be from HD sources but what I saw was definitely not HD. Anything you burn to disc at this point will be at 720X480 or less since HD-DVD burners are not yet available to the mass market. Several posters have indicated that they burned the downloaded content to DVD and still claim it is in HD, which is just sheer lunacy.


----------



## Scott Atkinson (Jan 19, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> Well, if you insist on a small screen, you can get HD sets as small as 26", if not smaller. And those tend to be LCDs, so they actually take up less room than a 26" CRT. (And yeah, I remember when 25" was as big as CRTs got. I'm sure smaller HD sets will come along, too... but frankly the main point of HD is to let sets get bigger while keeping good PQ. The things that held back the size of TVs in the past were the bulk of CRTs, the inadequacies of projection sets... and the lousy PQ of SD when it was blown up to big-screen sizes.)


Ah, I'm just old and cranky.

However, the whole HD thing reminds me of what's happened in gaming over the last few years.

Computer/PS 2/XBox games have largely 'gotten better' by looking better, IMHO.

To me, at least, it's the same old crap with a new veneer. Nintendo, alone among the big three console makers, seems to have its priorities straight - interesting, different games where the play's the thing, not the look.

Tivo is about making the substance of tv watching better. Given how much there is to see, and how many other things there are to do, that's what counts.

s.


----------



## nanz5388 (Jul 7, 2006)

GameGuru said:


> I just started thinking about this and I actually haven't recorded anything on my Tivo in about a year. I used to love Tivo but with bit torrent I can download HDTV rips of all my shows. We only have standard tv around here so I would much rather watch a crystal clear, widescreen, HDTV rip then my tv. I actually can't remember when I even watched TV that wasn't downloaded. I think I might cancel both cable and Tivo. I am moving to Ohio in a few months so maybe they will have HDTV there or at least digital cable and then I might Tivo stuff again but right now bit torrent gives me much better results. Maybe the networks won't kill Tivo but the internet will. Who knows.


I suggest investing in Satellite T.V. and, if you care, keep ur TiVo. Personally, I love it. NO MORE COMMERCIALS!!! I HATE COMMERCIALS!!! Fast Forward (FF) should be the 9th Wonder of the World! ha I can watch whatever show, whatever time I dang well please--sans the sponsor kapooshka that usually gets shoved down the average viewers throat!

But, other than that....I'm pretty neutral on the subject.

nanzy


----------



## nanz5388 (Jul 7, 2006)

*


mr.unnatural said:



Recording shows to videotape or DVR for personal use is legal. Distributing any such copyrighted material without express permission from the copyright holders is illegal. Why is it so many people are just not getting that concept?...

"...The issue with downloading copyrighted material is the loss of revenue from potential sales of said material. Case in point - the OP is downloading programs that were broadcast on HBO. HBO and DTV or whatever provider rebroadcast that program is losing out on potential revenue from subscription to the HBO package via their service. That is the same as theft of service, however indirectly it is occurring..." 

Click to expand...

*


mr.unnatural said:


> *UH, "indirectly...occurring..."???? I've had DTV for quite a few years and whether or not they assess fees for PPV's I chose, or I view movies offered in my "Package," I always have the option to "SAVE (download/record) TO VCR or "SAVE" to my DVR for later viewing/recording.
> 
> In our area, the options for satellite viewing are either DISH or DIRECTV; since DISH is a joke, DTV is preferable...both, to my knowledge, allow movie downloads. Sooooooooooooooo...C'MON!!! SOMEWHERE along the line, SOMEONE WHO NEEDS TO BE PAID, IS BEING BLOODY PAID, okeeeeee??? Else, it wouldn't be happenin'...
> 
> ...


----------



## nanz5388 (Jul 7, 2006)

*


mr.unnatural said:



I was referring to what earlier posters have specified. There were specific references to .avi files of only a few hundred MB, which could not possibly be anything even close to HD, unless it's a 30-second snippet. I'm sure there is actually a smattering of HD content available on bittorrent sites (I never said there wasn't any) but it's few and far between.

I don't monitor...bittorrent sites....number of seeders... bandwidth... downrezzed... compressed...HD..."as good as the original"...compressed... ...bandwidth... Uncompressed HD programming...P-P networks...file transfers... disc... 720X480... HD-DVD burners...burned the downloaded content...DVD ...HD...sheer lunacy.

Click to expand...

**Mr. N, listen...there comes a time, when ya really gotta figure that you JUST MIGHT BE getting an itty-bit TOO involved in the technical side-o-life...and, need--I MEAN NEED!!!--to get involved in the actual human race. If, in fact, you find that your mind revolves around, say, the words quoted above...IT MAY BE TIME, to re-evaluate your life and the goals that go along with it (i.e. - what makes me happy? how would a partner enhance my life? Would another person even CONSIDER me as a partner, given my current obsession? might I get even a SMIDGEON more out of my life, were I to turn off the booby-tube {including the one in my mind} and witness the world around me???) etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum-iteritizm???

jk - but not...take 'er eazy...**

nanzy*


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Looks like nanzy got out his (her?) box of crayons and decided to post.  

Personally, I don't give a rat's a$$ what anyone downloads or watches. I'm just informing you that there is illegal activity going on. I find it outrageously funny that people go to such great lengths to justify their actions when it is absolutely clear that what they're doing is outside of the law. It may seem like harmless activity to you but there are many in the industry that take it quite seriously and would love nothing better than to make an example out of anyone doing what the OP is doing.

The OP, and several others, are trying their best to convince the rank and file that the crap they download is as good as Hi-Def. Give me a frickin break already! I've explained, in great detail, why it is not HD and, in most cases, not even as good as standard def. I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. It's just that in this case the beholder needs glasses.

BTW nanzy, by your rationale it would be OK for only one person to subscribe to HBO or buy a PPV movie and then distribute it freely to everyone else. Saving a premium channel movie or PPV to VCR is perfectly legit for personal use. It's the distribution part that's illegal. All the people that are benefiting from the movie you distributed are not paying for it. This is what gets the studios in an uproar because you are potentially picking their pocket. 

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the studios on this or support them but to them the internet is a serious financial threat and bragging about it in an open forum is just adding fuel to the fire. My point being - if you like to download from the net, do it in the privacy of your own home and don't air your dirty laundry in public. The Feds just love it when someone breaks the law and then admits it in public. It makes their job so much easier.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

russwong said:


> I've been watching HD broadcasts on both my HD CRT and my non HD CRT and if you are not watching HD content just because you don't have HD TV, you are missing out. I think I've mentioned this a number of times.
> 
> The picture is much much much clearer even though you aren't getting the full HD resolution. If you have surround sound, you are missing out on DD 5.1. Also, there's the widescreen aspect that shows more.
> 
> ...


I just set up a Westinghouse LVM-42W2 42" LCD TV using the DVI output of a Motorola DCT 6400 hi-def cable box so the video signal path is digital all the way. As expected the resulting images are superb.

But before removing the very ordinary 27" Samsung TV which had been used in that room I had both TV's playing simultaneously. What is interesting is that despite there being no comparision between the images displayed by the hi-def monitor vs. the CRT set, when watched from across the room the old 27" TV, which cost $250 years ago (current 27" sets cost much less), still presented a consistently enjoyable TV viewing experience.


----------



## russwong (Sep 17, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> I just set up a Westinghouse LVM-42W2 42" LCD TV using the DVI output of a Motorola DCT 6400 hi-def cable box so the video signal path is digital all the way. As expected the resulting images are superb.
> 
> But before removing the very ordinary 27" Samsung TV which had been used in that room I had both TV's playing simultaneously. What is interesting is that despite there being no comparision between the images displayed by the hi-def monitor vs. the CRT set, when watched from across the room the old 27" TV, which cost $250 years ago (current 27" sets cost much less), still presented a consistently enjoyable TV viewing experience.


It is quite surprising how decent the picture is on a standard analog TV. It was so surprising to me, I have not found a TV I like to replace my 36" XBR and I've been looking for the the last 4 years. Yes, I've seen good plasmas, good LCDs, LCOS, etc, but they just aren't that great. God I hope SED comes to fruition, but that's another discussion, but it's looking like I might have to bite the bullet on an SXRD to pass the time....

What I find sad is that there are tons and tons of people who think they can't enjoy the better picture quality until they get an HD TV. I've been watching it on my same TV for 4 years now. Even Comcast and the other providers don't understand. I had to lie to Comcast to get them to install a 2nd HD cable box, because they wouldn't install it on my 36" TV. They said it's not an HD TV so it wont work. So I had them connect the cable box to my 19" LCD computer monitor and then I just moved the box to my TV when they left.

The only reason I would see not going to HD is because Tivo, but once I made the jump, I had to leave Tivo behind as backup use only, because the picture quality, the surround sound, the widescreen made it all worth while.


----------



## OldTownTreadles (Mar 15, 2006)

Redux said:


> I don't see your point. Unless you mean to be saying that copyright infringement is not a crime?


When I see someone infringing the copyright of one of my works, I have to take them to court about it. It is a civil matter. If it was a crime, then it'd be the People taking them to court about it. I find it interesting that it is touted as a crime when the infringed upon is a large enough company. If it is prosecuted as a crime when someone infringes on CBS's copyright, I shouldn't have to go out of pocket to pay lawyers to get the baddie that stole my poem without negotiating republication rights.


----------

