Muppet Show Downloads

[GonzoPimp]

It is true that we owe something to the JHC, but isn't it equally true that they owe it to us to put out DVDs that are worth the cost? I'm not saying I don't enjoy the DVDs, I love them and own them all, but what I am saying is how and why do they put out items so rarely and then on top of that, they are done so poorly, and then they wonder why the sales aren't where they should be...and another thing about run-on sentences...

I guess what I'm saying is Piracy, true piracy is wrong, but can you really blame someone for not wanting to pay, when it seems like the DVDs were just thrown together.

 

[scarecroe]

Just a whole bunch of theoretical questions to ponder and debate

Heres' one answer to your whole bunch of theoreticals: anything still currently commercially available shouldn't be made available for download in full on the Internet. PERIOD.

Not only is it illegal, but it's immoral.

Every time someone downloads an episode of The Muppet Show that's currently available on DVD, that's one less unit that won't be sold and counted by the distributor and JHC. So that when the involved parties look at the numbers and see that they're not selling, they won't make any more. And we won't get any more. And it will be back to the b*tching and complaining, and it will be your fault for downloading them instead of buying them.

That's how it works folks. I'll know who to thank when additional volumes never make it out.

 

[scarecroe]

but isn't it equally true that they owe it to us to put out DVDs that are worth the cost?

They owe NOTHING to us. They release DVDs to make money, not to make you happy. You're lucky to get anything at all.

So just because a DVD is missing a special feature that you wanted, that's no reason for you to pout in the corner and say, "well fine JHC, I'm just gonna steal them from you."

If that's the game you want to play, you might want to consider going back to your toddler playgroup.

Consider for a moment just how lucky we are to have 45 episodes of The Muppet Show uncut on DVD and stop being such a spoiled brat.

 

[anathema]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer...

Now, true, the Supreme Court ruled that "time shifting" is legal, but I haven't read the finer points of that ruling. Is it still legal to watch those episodes AGAIN and AGAIN? That is no longer truely "time shifting".

Nope. I don't recall the exact details of the US law, but the UK version, which is similar, states that you can only hang onto the recording for 30 days. You're not supposed to build up a library of recordings, much less make copies of them for others. The first part of that is completely unenforcable, of course

Trading tapes and dubbing them for others also is just the same as downloading them via. the internet.

I'd agree with that, although either way it's still copyright infringment (and NOT "theft" as the RIAA is trying to convince us ;-)

Now, lets take the example of someone who HAS all episodes of the Muppet Show on VHS, and they taped them off the TV themselves. Depending on if one thinks it is fine for that person to keep and enjoy those tapes, even though some are available for purchase now, can that person also download them from the internet?

So far as I know, that would also be copyright infringement. I would argue that if you were downloading someone else's TV recording, that's no different to digitising the show yourself (which *ought* to be covered by "fair use") and should be legal, but downloading someone's rip of a commercial DVD is definitely illegal. Of course, if you own the DVD yourself, you're supposedly entitled to make a backup, and again, I wouldn't distinguish between doing it yourself, and downloading someone else's.

What if a person OWNS a CD, and downloads the songs from that CD off of the internet, is that fine as well?

Now there's an interesting question which is leading to hundreds of subpoenas right now Again, I'd argue that it should be legal - at least for the downloader, who isn't gaining anything they hadn't already purchased.

Another question: suppose you had purchased an LP, cassette or 8-track of an album which has become damaged, or for which you no longer have a player. You've already paid for it - it may well be through no fault of your own that you can no longer play it, so why should you be forced to buy another copy? Of course, chances are you're downloading a CD-rip, which is probably of higher-quality than your original. Then again, if you gave a monkey's about quality, you wouldn't be downloading MP3s, you'd be doing them yourself...

What if a person OWNS a store purchased VHS tape of a Muppet Show, can they download that off the internet? What if the download is DVD quality and looks better then the VHS tape, or has an extra that the VHS doesn't?

The current argument would be that you're gaining something there, be it a higher-quality recording or the 'extra'. If you were downloading a copy taken from the VHS, on the other hand, I wouldn't have a problem with the idea.


The above are my views. I am not a lawyer.

 

[anathema]

Every time someone downloads an episode of The Muppet Show that's currently available on DVD, that's one less unit that won't be sold and counted by the distributor and JHC.

The flip-side of that argument is that most of the downloaders wouldn't have bought the item in the first place. Certainly there's no evidence that music sales are being hit by downloading. The main reason for the slowdown of CD sales is that for the last 20 years people have been replacing their vinyl collections, and this is coming to a natural end

Disclaimer (should have put this on the end of my last post): I do not condone (or condemn) downloading of copyrighted material

 

[scarecroe]

The flip-side of that argument is that most of the downloaders wouldn't have bought the item in the first place.

I don't see how it's the flip-side, it's the exact argument I'm making. Those who are downloading the episodes haven't purchased the product; otherwise, what are they downloading it for? Hence one less DVD that won't show up in sales charts.

Certainly there's no evidence that music sales are being hit by downloading.

Sure there is, it's all over the news. Didn't you hear that some dude was just fined 6 figures for making The Hulk available for download on the Internet? Additionally that the industry is now pressuring the courts to get IPs from everyone who has used P2P programs to download music and that they're talking jailtime. Not just fines, jailtime. Perhaps that will be a little incentive for these kids who think they have a "right" to steal media.

 

[anathema]

I don't see how it's the flip-side, it's the exact argument I'm making. Those who are downloading the episodes haven't purchased the product; otherwise, what are they downloading it for? Hence one less DVD that won't show up in sales charts.

I said "wouldn't", not "didn't". If the download wasn't available, they still wouldn't have bought the DVD. There's no sale there no matter what.

Sure there is, it's all over the news. Didn't you hear that some dude was just fined 6 figures for making The Hulk available for download on the Internet? Additionally that the industry is now pressuring the courts to get IPs from everyone who has used P2P programs to download music and that they're talking jailtime. Not just fines, jailtime. Perhaps that will be a little incentive for these kids who think they have a "right" to steal media.

That's not evidence, that's FUD. Yes, CD sales are down. They've been decreasing steadily for years, partly for the reason I mentioned. The industry wants us to believe the falling sales are due to downloaders - they probably believe it themselves - and I don't deny that it has some effect, but it's neither the only cause nor the main one. Anecdotal evidence indicates that downloaders actually buy more CDs - the "try-before-you-buy" effect.

Another major reason for falling sales is simple: customers don't want what's on offer. I have bought exactly one new CD in the last twelve months (the 25th Anniversary disc , and numerous second-hand ones. This is nothing to do with it being possible to download CDs, it's simply that *nothing* currently in the high-street retailers appeals to me. There's a vast amount of stuff I'd like to buy - I need to replace my ageing cassette collection as well - but I can't, unless it turns up second-hand. And some of it was never released on CD - heck, some of it was only ever released on vinyl!

The guy who put "Hulk" on the net got picked up because he was stupid enough to leak a pre-release copy from the ad agency where he worked. Big publicity, that one

Right now, all the RIAA has are a list of IP addresses and usernames. Their next step is to force the ISPs to turn over real names and physical addresses of their customers. This can apparently be done with a simple application to the clerk of the court. No police, no judge and no due process required. Ain't that great? All it takes is the suspicion that Joe Q Public *might* be making copyrighted material available illegally. They have a list of filenames. That's not proof - witness the cases where universities have been fingered for hosting 'OpenOffice' and some pillock thought it was MS Office...

Once again, IANAL, but this seems to me to be shifting the burden of proof onto the accused, not the accuser.


Anyway, as I said, I don't condone downloading. On the other hand, I object to the RIAA's heavy-handed tactics. I'm pleased they've finally seen sense and started going after the people who are actually making these files available, rather than trying to kill off perfectly legal - and useful - technologies. I just don't like the way they're going about it, nor do I like them calling it "theft". They could at least get their definitions correct, but I guess that wouldn't make for such a good sound-bite...

The BPI - which is the equivalent organisation over here - are taking the "educate, not litigate" approach, much as the MPAA are currently doing in the US. I believe they'll come down like the proverbial ton of bricks on anyone actually selling material, of course

 

[scarecroe]

The industry wants us to believe the falling sales are due to downloaders - they probably believe it themselves - and I don't deny that it has some effect, but it's neither the only cause nor the main one.

Sure, it's the whole "cars are destroying our ozone" thing, but it still has an effect.

I also don't believe that the majority of people downloading albums on P2P programs are going out and buying the CDs later. That's a crock made up by those defending themselves. If you want to "try before you buy" listen to the 60 second clips available at any e-store.

I think you and I share the same argument, we just have different points of view on it.

In the end, my position will always be the same. Don't download stuff you can buy.

It's insane that when I do a search on Kazaa, that I find nothing but DVD rips and no episodes that can't be purchased. That's what the Internet should be about. Sharing stuff that you can't easily get.

We're all a bunch of spoiled brats.

 

[anathema]

It's insane that when I do a search on Kazaa, that I find nothing but DVD rips and no episodes that can't be purchased.

Er...don't use Kazaa in that case ;-)

Admittedly the only English and French language ones up there are DVD-rips, but hey, if you speak German or Italian you're quids in!

And no, I'm not posting where I saw these.

 

[plucky]

Actually, there are many episodes available that are not out on DVD.

It’s interesting the vehemence and name calling that are resorted to when an opposing argument comes up. I won’t continue that, but will continue to give other things to think about.

First, are we saying that the Muppet Community at large who has old VHS tapes of the show they love should get rid of them and purchase the DVDs? How about those that still trade tapes, of both commercially released episodes or of non-available episodes?

If we look back through time, Copyright laws, when they were first introduced in the US, lasted for 14 years with the possibility of 14 years renewal afterwords. Heck, the Constitution only says something about "there should be Copyright, but it should only last a limited time, to encourage creativity." Over the years, that copyright has been extended and extended and extended. I find it interesting that people just take the current copyright laws as "this is the way it has always been and should be", never questioning anything. Many of the copyright extentions have been fought against, and the more recent ones have been lobbied heavily for by media companies.

Things that people should think about.

And yes, how many people who downloaded some episodes would have bought them? Theres no proof one way or the other.

Now note, before the flames go through the roof, I never said I downloaded episodes, and I didn't say that I haven't. We did tape every episode when they were on a long time ago around here, but I don't even know where those tapes are now.

IP rights are so screwy, and the DMCA is quite screwy too (has anyone else here actually read it? I have a couple of times, fun reading, really). I always wish I could get the real facts behind things instead of the stories the news tells. I read somewhere once that the RIAA reached a settlement with webcasters at colleges to charge a certain fee, and "webcasts that were limited to talk, news and sports would be charged a smaller fee".... why should the RIAA get ANY fee from them? I just don't get it sometimes

Well, I rekindled this thread a bit I think

plucky