Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: TV Lawsuits More Apparent In The Future?

  1. #1
    twisterX's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    CoNNecticut
    Posts
    5,272
    [news=http://www.slyck.com/newspics/DigitalTV.jpg]iTunes has been a resource for many users willing to pay for the format. Now with a business move many predicted months before it was made, iTunes is now selling digital video content. In fact, the move currently is TV shows that have aired on TV. So what does that mean for websites that offer hash codes that lead to TV shows?

    Under law, an individual, a group of individuals or even large corporations can only sue for quantifiable loss and/or damages. Arguably, TV shows earn a large sum of money through advertising and this is, for the most part, largely true. However, many TV companies charge a flat fee per advertising slot, so who is getting hurt when no one watches the show? In this case, the advertisers are the only ones who get hurt in the short run. No money is really lost if a number of people download the show after they miss the first half of it. It is only a long run thing when the ratings drop that advertisers are less willing to pay thousands of dollars per slot. Therefore, with less funding, the show can be forced off the air.

    So if a single person is downloading a show, can the recording companies really sue someone for losses and damages because there is no way to really prove that money was lost directly because of a single individual downloading a show? In some countries, it is illegal, but in other countries, it is not as it constitutes a fair use equivalent. Of course, record companies typically ignore fair use and go right after the individual anyway.

    In fact, TV fans move from show to show all the time. A large widespread example is when the first season of "Survivor" hit the airwaves. Millions of TV fans flocked from their sitcoms and drama shows to watch the new Reality TV phenomenon, hurting many shows in this process while fueling others. Survivor was the first "mega-hit" in the Reality TV trend, which was followed up by "Big Brother", and many other spin-offs ranging from Game-show Reality adaptations to dating games. Soon after came the home make-over trend. Many shows couldn't compete in this sudden trend in TV and were forced off the air. It wasn't because people were finding different ways of watching the shows, but because a new wave of TV hit the airwaves.

    So the question remained, was there truly a direct and fast way to prove that one person downloading one TV show really directly hurt that TV show or even the TV industry as a whole? To say the least, it would have been very difficult in proving such a thing.

    There are also many possibilities to throw into the equation such as time shifting, a small rotation in fans interest, real world events, and a countless list of other factors that can affect ratings. Not to mention the flip side of the fact that the individual, more often then not, is never actually paying for the show itself, rather, the connection to be able to view the show. So measuring the ill effects of a single individual downloading a show and trying to prove that the individual is financially damaging the industry giant would prove further difficult to measure or even prove in a court setting.

    By and large, compared to video games, movies and music, TV shows shared over P2P have remained relatively untouched in terms of massive lawsuits against the individuals. Some sites even gambled on simply indexing hash codes that led to TV shows only, expecting that a lawsuit was even more unlikely (though it has happened.) Generally speaking on P2P, an individual is less likely to be sued for sharing a TV show.

    Now, iTunes has stuck a price tag on previously aired shows and is expanding their library of shows for people to buy and download. Even though the number one source for freely downloadable shows is actually off of TV itself, it may not matter to the industry now. This is because of the video iPod with the combination of buyable TV shows for the iPod. This price has been $1.99.

    The existence of the price tag itself, and not just the cost, seems to be pretty significant as it throws many variables right out the window and offers a new way of measuring loss for the industry. There is the possibility that TV piracy crackdowns on Torrent sites and ED2K sites alike (maybe even wide-spread scene bust like operation site down) may be under a more real threat today.

    Still, getting caught downloading copyrighted TV shows does offer a more humorous side. Since the loss for the industry is $1.99, it could legally mean a lawsuit of exactly that price although this has proven not to be the case with music and movies.

    The provoked question remains, "Am I more likely to get a lawsuit for TV shows now that there is a price tag in the iTunes store?" Its just a possibility that TV anti-piracy will be ramped up.

    Source: www.slyck.com[/news]

  2. News (Archive)   -   #2
    Virtualbody1234's Avatar Forum Star BT Rep: +2
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11,497
    So... When are the advertisers going to go after iTunes for loss of revenue?

    Then the advertisers can also claim losses from the sale of TV shows on DVD (seasons).

    "Your Honor, People aren't watching or commercials"

  3. News (Archive)   -   #3
    GepperRankins's Avatar we want your oil!
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    the suburbs. honestment
    Age
    31
    Posts
    21,102
    the way i see it. i suffer the adverts and pay my TV license so i have every right to download TV programs. it's not even a murky scenario because we are still paying for this stuff.


    ps. big brother was before survivor and home makeover shows were before big brother

  4. News (Archive)   -   #4
    Virtualbody1234's Avatar Forum Star BT Rep: +2
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11,497
    Again about the TV licence... We don't pay that here. I turn on the set and watch. No other fee than the cost of the TV set, the antenna and the electricity.

    I do have the commercials but that's just a chance to check what's on the other channels.

  5. News (Archive)   -   #5
    twisterX's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    CoNNecticut
    Posts
    5,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234
    So... When are the advertisers going to go after iTunes for loss of revenue?

    Then the advertisers can also claim losses from the sale of TV shows on DVD (seasons).

    "Your Honor, People aren't watching or commercials"
    DVD sales? what do they want to put ads in dvds and now allow us to skip them.

  6. News (Archive)   -   #6
    GepperRankins's Avatar we want your oil!
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    the suburbs. honestment
    Age
    31
    Posts
    21,102
    tv networks should make a torrent site, but before you can download you have to stream adverts (like on websites such as gamespot). that way we can watch what we want when we want and they get their advertising revenue.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •