Because of the above, they have only paid to broadcast/distribute the show nationally, it would cost FAR more if they wanted to do it internationally, then theres the advertising that isnt appropriate for countries outside of the US you arent going to go buy "american brand x" after seeing it while watching TV because you cant buy the stuff here.
Downloading TV Shows.
- Thread starter grandmaster
- Start date
Again because whoever you downloaded it off hasnt paid for the rights to distribute or broadcast the show and more often than not the stuff thats distributed via torrents and the like has adverts chopped out not that p2p distributed stuff counts towards advertising revenue even if the adverts were intact.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Except of course there is often no choice as a viewer except simply not watch it.
Picking a show at random that I've not seen but isn't aired here - what if you want to watch Homeland? You cant buy it. You can't watch it on paid television. You can't watch it on UK television. It simply isn't shown here. Still morally wrong to download it?
Legally there is little point debating it as its fairly clear.
Picking a show at random that I've not seen but isn't aired here - what if you want to watch Homeland? You cant buy it. You can't watch it on paid television. You can't watch it on UK television. It simply isn't shown here. Still morally wrong to download it?
Legally there is little point debating it as its fairly clear.
Not really, the P2P networks are distributing it globally anyway, effectively at their own cost, so why not just legalise it and keep the distribution method the same. It wouldn't cost anything
But those adverts are useless. You aren't in the other country and as such are not the target Market and unlikely to be bale to buy the product anyway. That isn't what the producers have agreed to and isn't where they get their money from.
Does it? <ahem> The person who did the capture has paid for their tv package (in order to see the show), you have paid the company who will eventually show it here in the uk. The original transmitter hasn't lost any money, the uk transmitter hasn't lost any money.
Who is losing out here?
The net effect is the same regardless though. You either don't watch it at all, or you watch it via dubious methods. Either way you don't see the correctly targetted adverts.
P2P networks are distributing it ILLEGALLY because they don't hold the broadcast rights.Not really, the P2P networks are distributing it globally anyway, effectively at their own cost, so why not just legalise it and keep the distribution method the same. It wouldn't cost anything
They cant legalise it because a lot of people would just watch it at American pace and by time the shows come to the UK there is no money to be made because the people have already watched it 6-12 months before.
You pay to receive the channels, you dont pay for the rights to redistribute or rebroadcast the show even if its only you thats going to be watching it. If you redistribute it then you are breaking copyright law as you dont hold the rights to the property and you dont have the rights to redistribute it. The studios and tv channels that have paid to create the show have lost out because you are giving away their show for free, they arent getting any money from advertising revenue, etc..
Last edited:
Perhaps then the answer is to show stuff sooner than a year after everyone else in the world has got bored of it?
Why would people download television off the internet if it was available for them to view here, legally, when they wanted?
Scenario one: You download a television show aired in the United States but not in the United Kingdom. The producer gains no 'money' from you (but gains no 'money' from the American citizen either, as they don't pay the producer either).
Scenario two: You do not download a television show aired in the United States but not in the United Kingdom. The producer gains no 'money' from you (but gains no 'money' from the American citizen either, as they don't pay the producer either).
The outcome to the producer of both of these scenarios is the same.
You are not daft so I won't bother to explain why comparisons to physical theft are ridiculous.
And neither is it the UK consumers fault.
Having just returned from the USA I watched some television. As a UK citizen I was unable to lease the Camry advertised in the commercial break nor take out the Verizon telephone contract. Should I also therefore not have watched any television? What is the difference between me watching an episode of, say, Homeland, last week in my hotel room in Washington DC and Bob downloading it to watch in his room in Bromsgrove?
Both of us have paid nothing, consumed adverts irrelevent to us and generated zero income for anyone as a result of watching that television show.
Why do you think you have the right to stuff, if they don't want to license it over here tough luck.
Same as physical goods, many of which are legal abroad but illegal to obtain or have over here.
And I said, if it was free to manufacture and as such the producer lost nothing on you stealing a physical product. How about stealing energy at low periods? Where they are producing it anyway and it would just go to waste and they wouldn't get revenue from it.
Not that tv shows are free to produce.
I don't think its morally or legally right. But at the same time do what you want. But as I have said in many similar threads. Why try justifying it. It's not going to change what people do.
Same as physical goods, many of which are legal abroad but illegal to obtain or have over here.
And I said, if it was free to manufacture and as such the producer lost nothing on you stealing a physical product. How about stealing energy at low periods? Where they are producing it anyway and it would just go to waste and they wouldn't get revenue from it.
Not that tv shows are free to produce.
I don't think its morally or legally right. But at the same time do what you want. But as I have said in many similar threads. Why try justifying it. It's not going to change what people do.
Last edited:
Watching shows at US pace isnt a legal right and you arent entitled to watch it just because you feel left out that the UK is behind.[TW]Fox;20339116 said:
The show creators get money from the channels who broadcast their TV shows, and the channels who have forked out millions for the rights recoup that by showing adverts.[TW]Fox;20339116 said:
You watching the show in the UK doesnt count towards viewing figures which means you dont contribute towards ad revenue.
Last edited:
Please go back and read my posts again. Specifically the one where I have stated there is little point debating the legal position.
People are discussing this from a moral standpoint, not a legal standpoint.
It's getting better though. Big shows are usually only a week or two behind these days and plenty of films are now universal release date.
I have not stated I have the right to do anything. Nor have I stated what I actually do, either, so please do be careful. Nobody has a 'right' to television content except perhaps people who pay for Sky. This is not about the 'right' to do anything. It's about whether its really that big a deal or not.
No, it's nothing like the same.
Which physical products have zero manufacturing costs and result in zero loss when physically stolen?
Last edited: