Lanovision P2P video streaming client shown to endanger academic careers
posted Mar 11th 2005 12:57PM
Imagine iTunes shared music libraries for video, and you've got Lanovision, a new P2P video streaming client created
by one Patrick Fitzsimmons. PVRblog had occasion to have a bit of interview with Patrick, who clarified that the focus
on streaming over file sharing was both to avoid long download times as well as to avoid the long arm of the RIAA:
"Lanovision tries to be the equivalent of borrowing a friend's movie" (at least until even that's made illegal,
anyway). Future plans for Lanovision include integrating bittorrent-like functionality to distribute bandwidth more
effectively, as well as an OS X client in the near near future. It supports just about anything you can throw at it,
and it's completely free. We haven't had a chance to test it out yet, but apparently the populations of several college
dorms are in danger of flunking out of school because of its dopetitude, so we're prepared go ahead and give it a
hearty thumbs up.
[Via PVRblog]
So...
...let's just assume, for simplicity's sake, that as network bandwidth grows universally and enough people are running a service like this to, say, offer collections of hundreds or thousands of movies, television shows, and other copyrighted content (including some that haven't been released), that's it's just "okay" because you're not really downloading it, you're just "borrowing" it? Even if it's people you don't know? The entire world is now your "friend"? And no, it's not the "same" as borrowing a tape or DVD from someone you don't know, because 1.) chances are someone you don't know isn't going to give you their shit, and 2.) it's not quite as easy as just plopping down at your computer, selecting something from a list, and hitting "play".
Also, and one thing he kinda glossed over just a tad is that, um, the whole "borrowing from your 'friends'" thing (which is already invalid) itself even falls apart if the original content itself is pirated.
Is this what we've come to? No regard for the content providers and owners whatsoever, and lame, tired, and invalid justifications on why doing what is essentially stealing is "okay" so you can feel better about yourself? Oh, wait, let me guess, it's not "stealing", it's "copyright infringement"! And don't trot out the BS about "deprivation". It's stealing, plain and simple. But by all means, tell yourself it's something else, or that copyright law is unjust, or that the big mean corporations overcharge as it is, or how you're just a poor student, or about how services like this make you buy/see/etc. more movies, or any other excuse you have if it makes you feel better!
Ummm does this thing only work on a LAN?
In reply to (Poolshark) #2's question-->
Short answer: yes.
but... you may be able to use a program such as Hamachi (http://hamachi.cc) and have Lanovision "think" that is the LAN. Although when you install Lanovision it says that it gets "confused" if you have a wired AND wireless NIC/connection on the same computer so it probably would get confused by having 2 network connections with Hamachi.
Hmmmm...doesn't seem like a great product to me. Maybe I am missing the point.
#1... It depends on the content. Movies are fairly cut and dried - its illegal to stream or download them if you haven't paid for them. Television fuzzier an issue. Lets say you download the lastest episode of "Lost" with orginally broadcast commericals and everything intact. Is that copyright infringement? Well, no, not really. Yes, "Lost" is copyrighted, but its also freely broadcast on airways. We forget about that in today's world of cable and sattellite. If you have an antenna that can pick up an ABC signal, then you can see "Lost" each time its broadcast 100% free and its 100% legal to do so. Downloading it is merely timeshifting your content from broadcast time to sometime after broadcast time. Tivio does that, as does a VCR. If its legal to tape "Lost" from an over-the-air TV signal and watch it later with commericals, then its clearly legal to download it from the Internet and watch it later. Functionally, its the same.
Its much thornier when you're talking about cable/satellite stations. If you download the latest Sci-Fi channel show, that is technically copyright infringement. Why? Because you technically pay a subscription for that content. Of course the "fee" for that episode should be minimal. If you figure $100/month cable bill for 100 channels (numbers picked to make the math easy), then you're paying $1/month/channel. That means you're paying $.042 per channel per hour with commercials. Each hour show should then cost no more than a nickel if you download them with commericals - three cents (rounded up) for a half-hour show. Naturally, its even more expensive when you're talking about a premium channel like HBO.
I'm sorry, but there's nothing legally, morally, or ethically wrong with downloading over the air broadcast shows. There's a slight legal and eithical issue with downloading cable TV, but on the order of three cents to 5 cents per show, depending on time frame. So why is the entertainment industry getting so worked up over, literally, pennies?
#1 hit it on the head. you can close the comment section now. thx.