@Padriac: You fail to distinguish between uploading content versus downloading content. There is a distinction. Uploading a torrent is tantamount to broadcasting. One is widely distributing content without first having the requisite copyright permission to broadcast the content.

Downloading is different. One cannot steal what is given away for free. Can you steal a CD if the CD is played on the radio? No. Because purchasing the CD transfer ownership of the CD to the buyer. Can you rip a CD to your computer? Yes, because you own the fee to the CD; you may format/space-shift the CD into any format of choice.

How is downloading an over-the-air broadcast theft? The content is free.

Finally, as to the argument that DivX serves no legitimate purpose - who cares? It matters not. Here is what the Supreme Court has to say about technology that has potential legitimate uses but is used overwhelmingly for copyright infringement:

"Thus, although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter. A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the articular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.

***
What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated."

Remember, the legal system exists to make aggrieved parties whole, not to give a windfall to claimants.

omg-ponies

@omg-ponies:
"Is it legal to download a television program from the internet if that same program is broadcast for free over airwaves?"

No, it's not legal. Just like it's not legal to download a song you heard "broadcast for free" on the radio.

"Prove damages beyond that the viewer may have purchased an advertised product at some point in the future, including that the viewer would (a) not fast forward through the ad and/or (b) that the viewer would be in the room watching the ad."

Don't need to. Theft requires no obligation to prove damages. Whether you would or would not have watched the ads is irrelevant. The studios are allowing you to view the content under three assumptions:1) there is a *possibility* you will see the ads and 2) your viewing will potentially contribute to the show's ratings, which helps them increase ad revenue 3) (for cable) your desire to watch the show prompted you to spring for the cost of having that channel (paying for whatever cable package wold give you access to that channel).

Don't get me wrong, the TV business model has suddenly become horrendously outdated, but that still doesn't excuse stealing. You DivX/XviD people are thieves, plain and simple. And yes you can use the codec for legitimate content (just like other codecs can be used for pirated content) but this doesn't change actual usage patters where DivX/XviD are used almost exclusively by pirates (think of this way: how many people use DivX/XviD and don't pirate AT ALL. Answer is probably zero. Contrast with MP4/h.264).

So my point remains: if you are not a thief, there is little reason to care about or even know what DivX is. There are other, arguably better quality and definitely better supported codecs that can be used for legitimate content.

Padriac

Wait... this guy's last name is Hell?
Funny. Mine's Constantine. Asshole.

DetergentDinners

No doubt if Xbox360 allows me to play DivX and Xvid that I would purchase it real quick. That would finally be the clincher for me and perhaps for many others. Please let this be true!

funtasticguy

@EMoShunz: You make mix-tapes? The Anti-MixTape SWAT Team is on its way to you now.

omg-ponies

@omg-ponies: is that why the fuzz never came to put me away when i made a mix tape for my crush from cd to tape

EMoShunz

@omg-ponies: Regarding my "ad revenue" argument, yes, I know that the networks don't get money from purchases.

The deal is that advertisers assume that by putting the ad on television, viewers will buy the advertised product. For some things, it still works. Drug companies get their money's worth when advertising on the evening news (ask any doctor who's been treated as a pill dispenser by a patient). Then again, people don't time-shift the news or download it from the internet.

However, as the thinking goes, if more people download, there will be fewer viewers - and potential product buyers - which will lead to lower ad revenue for the network.

This assumes that TV commercials still work in the age of DVR. DVR is affecting the old business model with the ability to time-shift. If people are skipping ads, then why should an advertiser buy airtime anyway?

It also assumes that downloading detracts from viewers. In serialized dramas, it can help maintain viewership - ask anyone who's missed a couple episodes of "24". By maintaining steady interest in a program, a network could potentially charge more for its ad time by being able to better guarantee a steady demographic.

omg-ponies

H.264 plays on XBOX360, so I easily convert the XVID files with the free Videora Xbox360 Converter.
[www.videora.com]

LoopTrack

@EMoShunz: Did you buy the DVD? If so, all you're doing is format-shifting.

If purchasing a CD or DVD means that you have purchased the right to the content on that format only, then what is to stop consumers from saying that it's a an irrevocable license granted in perpetuity?

Personally, I'd love that. I have a ton of old CDs that are kind of scratched up and unplayable. I have a ton of records like that too. And cassettes that have been chewed. If I have a license to the content, instead of fee ownership of the physical media, then why shouldn't I just go down to the store and get a replacement. After all, I have a license granted in perpetuity, for that medium only of course.

Of course, if I have fee ownership of the physical media - and not just a license to the content in that format, then I can't demand a replacement. Then again, I am free to format-shift. I am also free to transfer the fee ownership (sell the CD or DVD) or make an archival copy, traditionally held to be fair use.

Format-shifting is perfectly legal, even more-so than downloading a broadcast television program (uploading may be considered "rebroadcasting"). Moreover, there is nothing immoral about format-shifting or time-shifting or any other kind of shifting. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

omg-ponies

best last name ever? Hell, yeah

Cassifras

@wetworker:
sorry
joox.net

wetworker

PADRIAC, did you know that h.264 has been sullied by pirates?

ReductiMat

sweet, that means zune might get it.@Padriac:
stage6.com
animefuel.com
joox.com

wetworker

@Padriac: Define "legal".

You are describing format-shifting.

Is it legal to download a television program from the internet if that same program is broadcast for free over airwaves? The network broadcast it over the air for free. So what is the loss to the network? Ad revenue? Prove damages beyond that the viewer may have purchased an advertised product at some point in the future, including that the viewer would (a) not fast forward through the ad and/or (b) that the viewer would be in the room watching the ad.

What if it's on cable and you are a cable subscriber? Who sustained damage? The cable channel? Once again, prove something beyond that the viewer may have purchased an advertised product with the same parameters. The cable company? You're a subscriber - they've been paid.

What if it's "The Sopranos" and you're an HBO subscriber? Once again, HBO has been paid. Where's the loss?

On an all-you-can-eat plan, which is what cable plans are, why should downloading from the internet be different from watching on DVR and fast-forwarding through commercials?

I ask you - define "legal" in this context.

omg-ponies

Why do they keep this stuff secret,it will only help 360 sales? Its only an update away not like people will wait to buy a new model with divx.

mpercy

seriously though, not sure about the legality of compressing dvd's you own...could be legit.

EMoShunz

@Padriac: the new iChat uses H.264 compression :P

EMoShunz

DivX through my Xbox? Looks like I will have to get back to downloading movies. Wait, um, I mean I am in discussion with myself about going back to Pirate Bay, but that isn't a certified or licensed idea at this time.

nailscars

I'll ask the same question I always do:

Is there an actual, legal source for DivX content. You know, non-torrented stuff? Would solid, upstanding citizens have any need for the DivX codec over, say, h.264 (assuming they have a semi-recent computer)?

Padriac

Yay!!! Too bad we could do this anyway.

kingbob337

OMG. I will be the happiest man alive if DivX support comes to the 360.

dead_red_eyes

Gizmodo ate my comment NOOO!

rususeruru

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the DMCA, I'm pretty sure that legislation is still in effect. And as such it is illegal to break the copy protection on the DVD you own... Sucks I know. But I think that the legit stuff that BitTorrent is trying to push now may use Divx and there may be some streaming content already that uses some form of the compression.

rususeruru

If it have xvid support, it'll be sweet.

Type-E

@Padriac: Tone down the anger. I treated you with respect in an effort to engage in intelligent debate. In return, you offer profanity. That's not how adults act.

I offered the Supreme Court's holding in Sony v. Universal. It's still valid law. What do you have?

Why does a season of "24" cost $30 on DVD? It's called monetizing content. It's a method of earning more money through alternative avenues. Once again, there is a subtle distinction between content recorded off the air and that from a disc. Such is RIAA's own argument on why they don't oppose recording music off the radio (although they oppose recording off of satellite radio). You fail to appreciate this subtlety. For example, the DVD copy doesn't have the broadcast logo in the middle and has a higher picture quality.

Watching broadcast television is not paying for the content. It never has been. Watching television broadcast over the airwaves (antenna) is free and the "implied contract" of watching commercials in exchange for the broadcast has never been accepted by any court.

How does torrenting a show allow ANY money to flow back to the content provider? Read the holding of Sony v. Universal.

Why do studios continue to make shows? Because there are alternate methods of getting ad revenue. Once again, look at "24". Every cell phone, computer, car, and gizmo is product placement. The same goes for "The Office". "Seinfeld" was another classic example.

You seem to confuse correlation and causation. Shows like "24" and "Heroes" demand regular viewership. If the viewer misses an episode or two, s/he generally waits for the season to come out on DVD. Ironically, monetizing an alternative revenue stream has led to a theoretically possible decrease in the main revenue stream. Further, torrenting helps stave off that problem by allowing the viewer to download the missed episode, thus ensuring continuous viewership during the season (with ads) as opposed to waiting for the DVD (which has no ads). Torrenting mitigates dropoff.

omg-ponies

@Padriac: Put simply, some of the most downloaded shows are some of the most purchased. That cant be a coincidence.

Most people download a show, simply because they wont be able to watch it on tv. They download it so they will be able to talk about it with their mates that week.

I refuse to believe that no money is made from the downloading of tv series and music, I would insist that a lot of people who download shows they like, eventually end up purchasing the item, if for nothing more than the box.

Everyone i know who downloads, has an interest in either movies/tv series/music, and that interest translates to huge dvd/cd collections.

I do not know one person who downloads things, that has not grown a huge collection of dvds.

I would also know 4 or 5 heavy downloaders, who buy up to 4 dvds a week, and i know one heavy downloader of music who buys up to 6 albums a week..

Downloading does not hurt at all, the people who download and never end up buying the cd/dvd are the people who would never have bought the dvd/cd in the first place, they simply dont like the product that much. So nothing has been lost.

Sales have been gained as some people find gems that they MUST own though.

prodigal_son

@omg-ponies:

1) So basically you admit that the uploading is illegal. Isn't the point of bitorrent that *everybody* is uploading bits and pieces of a file to other people. Thus you are all broadcasters and all breaking the law.

Second, your logic about downloading is typical sense-of-entitlement mindfucking that most software thieves use to justify their crimes. If all TV shows are free, why the hell does a season of 24 cost $30 or whatever on DVD. It certainly costs mere dollars to manufacture the discs. It's because you are PAYING for the content. When it's on television you pay for the content by a) tuning to the channel to increase ratings b) watching, or at least potentially watching, the advertisements c) Outright paying for the show (as with HBO and other premium channels with no advertisements). And no, by paying for basic cable you don't get to download any cable show you want: basic cable is both ad supported AND paid for directly.

So tell me how torrenting a show allows ANY money to flow back to the content provider? It doesn't, and is thus theft. Why the hell would studios bother to even produce these shows you like to steal if they knew there was zero chance they would receive even 1 cent in return? They wouldn't: all production would cease.

Here's a mental exercise: pick a show you like. Now pretend everybody decided they were only going to torrent this show and would not view it through any other means. How long do you think this show that you love would actually remain on the air?

2)I didn't say DivX should be "illegal" because it is primarily used for pirated content. What I said is that if you DON'T want to pirate content, there's no reason for you to ever give two $h@ts about DivX because you will be hard pressed to find any "legal" DivX content unless you make it yourself. But if you're going to make it yourself, might as well stick with a more universal and default codec that doesn't require a bunch of add-on fuss to work (WMV, Quicktime, MP4, etc.).

In short, if you care about DivX/XviD support there's a 99% chance you are a cowardly thief. Stop pretending you're some clever individual asserting your rights and just admit that you're no better than the kid stuffing DVDs in his underwear at Best Buy.

Padriac

I don't feel like getting involved in the "is it right to download content..." debate. I'm just confused as to what this has to do with DivX. I can see how you'd be led to that discussion when talking about p2p technology, but DivX is simply a codec. Padriac, back in the 90's, when movies were bootlegged on VHS tapes, would you want VHS tapes and VCRs banned? I've been using DivX for years to encode stuff I've recorded as well as shot myself for my personal use, because it's a great codec. Why do you think encoding with DivX is worse than encoding with h.264??

manyou07

. . why is divx/xvid support so important?, we have XBMC for that.

What I really want is full x264 support for all the .mkv 720p/1080p rips i have.

WolfDV

@WolfDV:
XBMC isn't for the 360. And the point that the version 2.0 extenders can do it already and the 360 can't is quite an issue.

jennyfur