FLM films - My Webpage

2003-11-08 19:46:55-05:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 00:40:00 GMT, "nimue" <cup_o_cakes2NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >I found this website http://www.buffy.nu/ while I was surfing around, and I >saw that you could download episodes. I was glad to see this, because I >missed last week's Angel episode. However, before you download the ep, you >have to download BitTorrent-3.3.exe . Does anyone know what that is? Is it >evil? Can it be redeemed? Will it hurt my computer. Thanks from a very >ignorant >nimue It's a file sharing program but unlike programs such as Kazaa, it installs and simply creates a plugin within Internet explorer. You click on a bittorrent link and prompts you for the location to put the file then allows you to simultaneously download and upload it. Your upload is of the portion of the file you currently have so you dont even need to have the whole file to be sharing with others.. http://www.dessent.net/btfaq/#what What is BitTorrent? BitTorrent is a protocol designed for transferring files. It is peer-to-peer in nature, as users connect to each other directly to send and receive portions of the file. However, there is a central server (called a tracker) which coordinates the action of all such peers. The tracker only manages connections, it does not have any knowledge of the contents of the files being distributed, and therefore a large number of users can be supported with relatively limited tracker bandwidth. The key philosophy of BitTorrent is that users should upload (transmit outbound) at the same time they are downloading (receiving inbound.) In this manner, network bandwidth is utilized as efficiently as possible. BitTorrent is designed to work better as the number of people interested in a certain file increases, in contrast to other file transfer protocols. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-09 00:40:00+00:00 - Download Angel eps Question - (nimue <cup_o_cakes2NOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


I found this website http://www.buffy.nu/ while I was surfing around, and I saw that you could download episodes. I was glad to see this, because I missed last week's Angel episode. However, before you download the ep, you have to download BitTorrent-3.3.exe . Does anyone know what that is? Is it evil? Can it be redeemed? Will it hurt my computer. Thanks from a very ignorant nimue "...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of course, but after that. Every night after that...every night I save you." Spike to Buffy After Life Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women are crazy about him, doesn't it?

2003-11-09 00:58:53+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


nimue wrote: > > I found this website http://www.buffy.nu/ while I was surfing around, and I > saw that you could download episodes. I was glad to see this, because I > missed last week's Angel episode. However, before you download the ep, you > have to download BitTorrent-3.3.exe . Does anyone know what that is? Is it > evil? Can it be redeemed? Will it hurt my computer. Thanks from a very > ignorant It appears to be a downloading program that downloads not only from the central source providing the file, but from all the other people trying to download the file, and uploads what part of the file you already have to other people. It's not really much different from Kazaa, et al.. It is an evil program if you are against copyright infringement, although not every file downloaded through it will infringe copyright. These episodes will. It is not an evil program in the sense that it will hurt your computer. It is an 'open source' program. Typically a program is written in a human-readable form, 'source code', and compiled into a machine-readable from for distribution, with the source code remaining a commercial secret. It is possible for such 'closed source' programs to include nasty little back-door functions, but an open source program is open to scrutiny and therefore much more trustworthy. -- David Brewer "The mentally disturbed do not employ the Theory of Scientific Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of facts." - P.K.Dick (from VALIS)

2003-11-09 02:04:32+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Eds <callmerazor@hotmael.com>)


"nimue" <cup_o_cakes2NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:A1grb.130741$pT1.8315@twister.nyc.rr.com... > I found this website http://www.buffy.nu/ while I was surfing around, and I > saw that you could download episodes. I was glad to see this, because I > missed last week's Angel episode. However, before you download the ep, you > have to download BitTorrent-3.3.exe . Does anyone know what that is? Is it > evil? Can it be redeemed? Will it hurt my computer. Thanks from a very > ignorant > nimue > BitTorrent is the coolest. Provided you can upload, you will get a faster and (almost) instantly available download than any other p2p client I know. No nasties hidden inside. As for copyright infringement, it is doubtful whether a copy of a publicly broadcast program can be said to infringe. Like I care about this, but you might. Happy dling! Eds

2003-11-09 13:09:39+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


"Matthew( The Tv Watcher )�" wrote: > > On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 00:58:53 GMT, David Brewer > <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >It is an evil program if you are against copyright infringement, > >although not every file downloaded through it will infringe > >copyright. These episodes will. > > Oh fuck off, are you a doo gooder?!? No. I'm a downloader. -- David Brewer "The mentally disturbed do not employ the Theory of Scientific Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of facts." - P.K.Dick (from VALIS)

2003-11-09 13:48:10-05:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:37:56 GMT, Ian Merrithew <optimus2861@my-deja.com> wrote: >"Eds" <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote in >news:bok7bf$p3n$1@sparta.btinternet.com: > >> No nasties hidden inside. As for copyright infringement, it is >> doubtful whether a copy of a publicly broadcast program can be said to >> infringe. Like I care about this, but you might. > >Not to spark this whole can'o'worms again, but distributing a copy of a >*copyrighted* publicly broadcast program without the copyright holder's >consent will almost definitely be determined to be an infringement. > >(Enjoy it while it lasts, since your FCC just approved that broadcast- >flag proposal that the MPAA's been shrilling for. No good's going to >come out of that thing.) I read the article about the FCC ruling but for the life of me, I can't figure out how that's supposed to work. The article says it will still allow recording to vcr's or dvd recorders but supposedly make it more difficult to upload to the net. How? I can't imagine a digital copy protection of some sort that would allow recording to vcr's but not allow it to be saved to a standard mpeg file. Or is every household going to have it's own signature that could allow it to be traced to the source? The latter is right at _1984_ and Big Brother territory. At any rate, I have more faith in the hackers out there to be able to strip something like that with hardly a second thought. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-09 16:19:52+11:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - ("Matthew( The Tv Watcher )�" <whodr6319@yahoo.com.au>)


On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 00:58:53 GMT, David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >It is an evil program if you are against copyright infringement, >although not every file downloaded through it will infringe >copyright. These episodes will. Oh fuck off, are you a doo gooder?!?

2003-11-09 18:37:56+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Ian Merrithew <optimus2861@my-deja.com>)


"Eds" <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote in news:bok7bf$p3n$1@sparta.btinternet.com: > No nasties hidden inside. As for copyright infringement, it is > doubtful whether a copy of a publicly broadcast program can be said to > infringe. Like I care about this, but you might. Not to spark this whole can'o'worms again, but distributing a copy of a *copyrighted* publicly broadcast program without the copyright holder's consent will almost definitely be determined to be an infringement. (Enjoy it while it lasts, since your FCC just approved that broadcast- flag proposal that the MPAA's been shrilling for. No good's going to come out of that thing.) -- Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org Dartmouth High Gym Ball Hockey League page at http://24.138.1.228:2655/

2003-11-09 23:11:26-05:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - ("Jim Shaffer, Jr." <jmshaffer@alltel.net>)


On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:48:10 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>(Enjoy it while it lasts, since your FCC just approved that broadcast- >>flag proposal that the MPAA's been shrilling for. No good's going to >>come out of that thing.) > >I read the article about the FCC ruling but for the life of me, I can't >figure out how that's supposed to work. The article says it will still >allow recording to vcr's or dvd recorders but supposedly make it more >difficult to upload to the net. How? I can't imagine a digital copy >protection of some sort that would allow recording to vcr's but not allow it >to be saved to a standard mpeg file. I think the intention is that there won't *be* any analog output produced by any future digital television devices on the American market now that the standard has been approved. (Europe is using a different HDTV format, last I heard -- in fact, I'm not even sure if theirs is digital at all. It always seemed profoundly stupid of the American broadcast industry to apply lossy compression to a format intended to produce a picture suitable for very large televisions.) Luckily, there is already an application, GNU Radio (http://comsec.com/wiki?HowtoHdTv), that will decode HDTV signals entirely in software. Since it's open-source, nobody will ever be able to ensure that there isn't a non-broadcast-flag-honoring version around. Of course, the hardware is ridiculously expensive for the hobbyist, but it does demonstrate that you can't legislate physical reality.

2003-11-10 11:36:40+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Eds <callmerazor@hotmael.com>)


"Mad Hamish" <h_laws@aardvark.net.au> wrote in message news:lvluqvkrlogs5k6ajfhe393rfcdjfntf1t@4ax.com... > On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 02:04:32 +0000 (UTC), "Eds" > <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote: > > > > >"nimue" <cup_o_cakes2NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:A1grb.130741$pT1.8315@twister.nyc.rr.com... > >> I found this website http://www.buffy.nu/ while I was surfing around, and > >I > >> saw that you could download episodes. I was glad to see this, because I > >> missed last week's Angel episode. However, before you download the ep, > >you > >> have to download BitTorrent-3.3.exe . Does anyone know what that is? Is > >it > >> evil? Can it be redeemed? Will it hurt my computer. Thanks from a very > >> ignorant > >> nimue > >> > > > >BitTorrent is the coolest. Provided you can upload, you will get a faster > >and (almost) instantly available download than any other p2p client I know. > > > >No nasties hidden inside. As for copyright infringement, it is doubtful > >whether a copy of a publicly broadcast program can be said to infringe. > > How is it possible to reach an age where you can reach the keyboard > yet be so clueless? What precisely is the license agreement when you watch a broadcast program? Do you remember signing one? In fact, wait, I didn't agree they could wobble the ether that permeates my body, just so some folks can watch a TV show. It's my ether and I'll do what I like with it! If I want to keep a record of its wobbles on my computer, I will, and I will share that record with my pals online. I'm sorry, but no matter what they say, TV is in the public domain and enforcing copyright would, I think ,be a lot harder than with CD copying, say, where you normally have to pay to get hold of it. Not that the legalities bother me much, because property is theft, right, so I say go right ahead and download that ep. I can't watch s5 any other way, as I don't live in the US. They didn't even finish showing s3 in the UK as far as I recall. Eds

2003-11-10 11:43:47-08:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (susangg@goldrush.com)


I have used bittorrent when I had broadband. It works very well and is easy to use, though it is very very slow, due to the fact that you will upload at a far faster rate than you will download. With 128K it usually takes about 18 hours to download an entire episode. If you look at your status, you will see that the upload speed is often twice as fast as your download speed. Before I used it, I checked around to see if it was known for spreading virii and the general consensus was no, whereas I have heard many horror stories about kazaa and virii. One good thing about bittorrent is that it will automatically resume right where your download left off if you get disconnected from the net or the download stops for some reason. The main drawback is the slow speed. One thing that I have found to work well is when your download starts dragging, disconnect and re connect and when you start up, it will be faster for awhile at least. There are more compressed versions of the episodes available at buffy.nu but their quality is often problematic, whereas the bittorrents are nearly always OK quality wise. Copyright infringment? You are confusing me with somebody who cares. I don't live anywhere that the WB is available (not current episodes,anyway). if I was allowed to download it for a reasonable fee I would be happy to pay it. But since they won't make it available to me for money, I feel perfectly fine about downloading these episodes for free. As for the FAA "Flag rule," it does not take affect until 2005, I believe. That means, upgrade your system in 2004 and plan on keeping it for awhile. Or buy your system in another country. (Yes, this is a real great way to help US computer and entertainment hardware manufacturers compete....NOT!)

2003-11-10 12:52:55+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Phoenix <phoe_bbb@hotmail.com.invalid>)


"Eds" <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote in news:bont87$h03$1@hercules.btinternet.com: > What precisely is the license agreement when you watch a > broadcast program? Do you remember signing one? In fact, > wait, I didn't agree they could wobble the ether that > permeates my body, just so some folks can watch a TV show. > It's my ether and I'll do what I like with it! If I want to > keep a record of its wobbles on my computer, I will, and I > will share that record with my pals online. > > I'm sorry, but no matter what they say, TV is in the public > domain and enforcing copyright would, I think ,be a lot > harder than with CD copying, say, where you normally have > to pay to get hold of it. > > Not that the legalities bother me much, because property is > theft, right, so I say go right ahead and download that ep. > I can't watch s5 any other way, as I don't live in the US. > They didn't even finish showing s3 in the UK as far as I > recall. > > Eds You do know that even in the UK taping from TV is technically illegal? As is taping from the radio. As far as taping broadcast shows you are allowed to tape as long as you erase after so many weeks, or maybe a few months. Ridiculous eh? And it's only legal if it's for your own use, so if you lend it out you are breaking the law. The fact that you don't know the law is no defence. However, as nobody takes any notice they are unlikely to do anything about it, but they *could* if they had a mind to. As for downloading, quite a few ISP's over here have sent out letters warning their subscribers for doing so. But it isn't really downloaders they are after, it's uploaders. P2P like Kaaza and BitTorrent force you into being an uploader in order to download, so if they catch you they'll have you by the short and curlies. Don't know why people don't use the binary group on Usenet it's much quicker and more under the radar. More complicated to use though. There is also IRC. I wouldn't touch Kaaza or BiTorrent with a tenfoot pole. Heh there is a website on the 'net charging $10 a year for "unlimited downloads" of movies, and you purchase their software and can get as much as you want. Turns out this software is Kaaza. Ya have to admire some peoples cheek. ;) Phoe -- I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. The Big Bad Board ~ the Spikecentric AtS Forums Recaps by The Kneecappers - Usenet - Chat - Journals http://www.bigbad.net (To email remove .invalid from the email address)

2003-11-10 13:19:23+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Eds <callmerazor@hotmael.com>)


"Phoenix" <phoe_bbb@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message news:boo1n7$kur$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk... > "Eds" <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote in > news:bont87$h03$1@hercules.btinternet.com: > > > What precisely is the license agreement when you watch a > > broadcast program? Do you remember signing one? In fact, > > wait, I didn't agree they could wobble the ether that > > permeates my body, just so some folks can watch a TV show. > > It's my ether and I'll do what I like with it! If I want to > > keep a record of its wobbles on my computer, I will, and I > > will share that record with my pals online. > > > > I'm sorry, but no matter what they say, TV is in the public > > domain and enforcing copyright would, I think ,be a lot > > harder than with CD copying, say, where you normally have > > to pay to get hold of it. > > > > Not that the legalities bother me much, because property is > > theft, right, so I say go right ahead and download that ep. > > I can't watch s5 any other way, as I don't live in the US. > > They didn't even finish showing s3 in the UK as far as I > > recall. > > > > Eds > > You do know that even in the UK taping from TV is technically > illegal? As is taping from the radio. > > As far as taping broadcast shows you are allowed to tape as long > as you erase after so many weeks, or maybe a few months. > Ridiculous eh? And it's only legal if it's for your own use, so > if you lend it out you are breaking the law. The fact that you > don't know the law is no defence. > > However, as nobody takes any notice they are unlikely to do > anything about it, but they *could* if they had a mind to. > > As for downloading, quite a few ISP's over here have sent out > letters warning their subscribers for doing so. But it isn't > really downloaders they are after, it's uploaders. P2P like > Kaaza and BitTorrent force you into being an uploader in order > to download, so if they catch you they'll have you by the short > and curlies. > > Don't know why people don't use the binary group on Usenet it's > much quicker and more under the radar. More complicated to use > though. There is also IRC. > > I wouldn't touch Kaaza or BiTorrent with a tenfoot pole. > > Heh there is a website on the 'net charging $10 a year for > "unlimited downloads" of movies, and you purchase their software > and can get as much as you want. Turns out this software is > Kaaza. Ya have to admire some peoples cheek. ;) > > Phoe We are all lawbreakers. Get over it. Even lending a CD or bought video is in breach of the license agreement. Downloading without uploading is leeching, and I wouldn't touch leeching with a member of Tenpole Tudor. We're all in it together. Fuck the law. Eds

2003-11-10 13:25:22+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Phoenix wrote: > [...] > As for downloading, quite a few ISP's over here have sent out > letters warning their subscribers for doing so. But it isn't > really downloaders they are after, it's uploaders. P2P like > Kaaza and BitTorrent force you into being an uploader in order > to download, so if they catch you they'll have you by the short > and curlies. > > Don't know why people don't use the binary group on Usenet it's > much quicker and more under the radar. More complicated to use > though. There is also IRC. It isn't ISPs who want to stop people from downloading stuff. It is the downloading of copyright-busting stuff that drives the big Internet boom and they are the one raking in the money by sending you other people's work at bargain all-you-can-eat prices. The PC retailers know it too, that's why they emphasise all the multimedia and Internet functions of their wares. This isn't about the little guy vs. the big evil corporations. -- David Brewer "The mentally disturbed do not employ the Theory of Scientific Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of facts." - P.K.Dick (from VALIS)

2003-11-10 13:41:50+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Eds <callmerazor@hotmael.com>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FAF91C2.AB121B7D@blueyonder.co.uk... > Phoenix wrote: > > > [...] > > As for downloading, quite a few ISP's over here have sent out > > letters warning their subscribers for doing so. But it isn't > > really downloaders they are after, it's uploaders. P2P like > > Kaaza and BitTorrent force you into being an uploader in order > > to download, so if they catch you they'll have you by the short > > and curlies. > > > > Don't know why people don't use the binary group on Usenet it's > > much quicker and more under the radar. More complicated to use > > though. There is also IRC. > > It isn't ISPs who want to stop people from downloading stuff. It > is the downloading of copyright-busting stuff that drives the big > Internet boom and they are the one raking in the money by sending > you other people's work at bargain all-you-can-eat prices. The PC > retailers know it too, that's why they emphasise all the > multimedia and Internet functions of their wares. This isn't about > the little guy vs. the big evil corporations. > > -- > David Brewer Spot on. It's a clash of business models.

2003-11-10 22:21:29+11:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Mad Hamish <h_laws@aardvark.net.au>)


On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 02:04:32 +0000 (UTC), "Eds" <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote: > >"nimue" <cup_o_cakes2NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:A1grb.130741$pT1.8315@twister.nyc.rr.com... >> I found this website http://www.buffy.nu/ while I was surfing around, and >I >> saw that you could download episodes. I was glad to see this, because I >> missed last week's Angel episode. However, before you download the ep, >you >> have to download BitTorrent-3.3.exe . Does anyone know what that is? Is >it >> evil? Can it be redeemed? Will it hurt my computer. Thanks from a very >> ignorant >> nimue >> > >BitTorrent is the coolest. Provided you can upload, you will get a faster >and (almost) instantly available download than any other p2p client I know. > >No nasties hidden inside. As for copyright infringement, it is doubtful >whether a copy of a publicly broadcast program can be said to infringe. How is it possible to reach an age where you can reach the keyboard yet be so clueless? -- "Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by." Stuart Adamson 1958-2001 Mad Hamish Hamish Laws h_laws@aardvark.net.au

2003-11-10 23:36:27+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Eds <callmerazor@hotmael.com>)


"Susan" <susangg@goldrush.com> wrote in message news:5a50f82d.0311101143.1748dbe3@posting.google.com... > I have used bittorrent when I had broadband. It works very well and > is easy to use, though it is very very slow, due to the fact that you > will upload at a far faster rate than you will download. With 128K it > usually takes about 18 hours to download an entire episode. If you > look at your status, you will see that the upload speed is often twice > as fast as your download speed. > This is not my experience of bittorrent. I have used it with both broadband and dialup and find that it does a good job of balancing upload with download, though it does take a while to settle at an even pace. If I don't have any other uplads going, I find it the quickest method for getting large files. One problem with bt is it can take a long time to get the end of a file, because people tend to disconnect once they've completed, so the last few megs are scarce. I have also been experimenting with Shareaza, which supports multiple p2p networks, including bittorrent. Haven't figured it out properly, yet, but on first showing I don't recommend it as a bittorrent client. > Before I used it, I checked around to see if it was known for > spreading virii and the general consensus was no, whereas I have heard > many horror stories about kazaa and virii. I haven't heard a confirmed report of a trojan which exploits Kazaa, though it is possible; most people who got virii through using p2p got it by downloading executables (.exe, .zip, .rar) and not virus checking before they executed it. > > One good thing about bittorrent is that it will automatically resume > right where your download left off if you get disconnected from the > net or the download stops for some reason. > > The main drawback is the slow speed. One thing that I have found to > work well is when your download starts dragging, disconnect and re > connect and when you start up, it will be faster for awhile at least. This is the exact opposite of my experience :-s > > There are more compressed versions of the episodes available at ><censored|> but their quality is often problematic, whereas the > bittorrents are nearly always OK quality wise. > that site seems to be down today. We're not supposed to name download sites on this ng, as WB are apparently trying to shut them down :-( > Copyright infringment? You are confusing me with somebody who cares. > I don't live anywhere that the WB is available (not current > episodes,anyway). if I was allowed to download it for a reasonable > fee I would be happy to pay it. But since they won't make it > available to me for money, I feel perfectly fine about downloading > these episodes for free. Amen. And if you did live in a WB zone, you could've taped it legally anyhow under the fair use clause of US copyright law. Makes no sense to me. I am actually *more* likely to buy an Angel or Buffy DVD set now that I have downloaded all the eps to date. Angel has barely made it to the UK at all, so how else was I supposed to know I liked it? Fling seventy quid at the Virgin Megastore, just in case? > > As for the FAA "Flag rule," it does not take affect until 2005, I > believe. That means, upgrade your system in 2004 and plan on keeping > it for awhile. Or buy your system in another country. (Yes, this is > a real great way to help US computer and entertainment hardware > manufacturers compete....NOT!) Do you have a link for more info about this? Eds

2003-11-11 03:52:35-08:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (susangg@goldrush.com)


You may want to visit the politech site or maybe even subscribe. It's a great source of info on all things relating to politics and technology, especially vis a vis freedom issues. Here's a recent post on the FCC flag issue that explains it in detail. [Ethan is an attorney in Washington. --Declan] --- From: "Ethan Ackerman" <eackerma@u.washington.edu> To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan@well.com> Subject: RE: "broadcast flag" - the details Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:09:56 -0500 [[Feel free to attribute to me, this is just my 2 cents, and is not attributable to any past, present or future employers.]] Declan, This is a final order from the FCC - effectively the law of the land unless a court overturns it. A few big-picture thinkers with some foresight (Jamie Love at the Consumer Project on Technology) recognize that this is roughly the DMCA-ization of over the air digital broadcast, and are struggling against similar efforts right now as they are pushed at WIPO and other international treaty processes. Summary: What this Order means is that after June 2005 EVERY device that can receive over the air Digital Television (DTV) broadcasts OR is designed to handle DTV streams from a tuner must be capable of recognizing the "broadcast flag" and following FCC's rules for content protection. The FCC in the order says they mean "EVERY DTV device", and explicitly includes PCs with tuner cards, etc. The details: -The Order identifies the ATSC DTV flag stand as the official "broadcast flag," a bit of code at the beginning of the digital bit stream that signals the stream is protected. (See http://www.atsc.org/document_map/psip.htm for nitty-gritty.) IMPORTANTLY, the FCC doesn't REQUIRE broadcasters to flag every DTV broadcast, it just say IF flagged, this particular ATSC flag must be used. (i.e. any broadcaster , from your local PBS station to NBC's nightly news stream to FOX's special broadcast of the Matrix, COULD still broadcast unflagged DTV.) -This issues is mostly separate from the copy protections on cable TV and satellite, which have had some type of protections for a while. This Order applies to over the air digital television equipment (including e.g. HDTV) -The Order requires all covered devices manufactured after July 1, 2005 accept the broadcast flag and follow a set of rules for handling DTV content with the flag. (This is not a retroactive rule, manufactures can make whatever they want before then, and consumers don't "have" to go out and buy new equipment on July 1, but see comments below on how this will effectively "force" consumers to buy new equipment.) -The FCC Order requires that every covered device can only handle the protected content in "7 ways," (roughly: unrestricted conversion or transmission to analog, digital output to a few legacy low-end digital displays, or digital format or output ONLY with some type of "approved copy protection.") -The Order requires that every covered device that passes content to another covered device do so only in certain "Robustly" protected ways, to prevent unauthorized distribution. The FCC roughly defines "Robust" as not accessible to the average consumer, with several specific examples: PCMCIA busses, SmartCards, PCI cards are all declared NOT Robust, as is anything that can be overcome with decompilers, debuggers, EEPROM readers, screwdrivers, jumpers, or a soldering iron. CPU and memory busses are all declared "Robust." -The FCC indicated in their ruling that the formal process for approving each "copy protection scheme" will be decided in a subsequent rulemaking, but also enacted interim standards. -The interim standards allow anyone who believes they have a good standard to "certify" to the FCC that it is good, and disclose several aspects of it. After 20 days of public comment (and 10 each for rebuttal and counter-rebuttal, if necessary) the FCC will look at all comments and either approve or deny each submitted standard. Manufactures will be able to comply with any of the approved standards, so if the FCC approves more than one, they can pick and choose. ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- my comments & observations: - The FCC makes a BIG point of claiming this is to prevent "Internet redistribution" and NOT to restrict individual consumer copying or uses. ("consumers' ability to make digital copies will not be affected; the broadcast flag seeks only to prevent mass distribution over the Internet." is the quote from FCC summary at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240759A1.pdf) This is NOT TRUE, and rather deceptive of the FCC. Consumers' ability to make digital copies WILL BE affected. The text of the order basically only allows flagged content to be copied or transmitted to devices that have "approved copy protection." The FCC requirements for an "approved copy protection" are a 4-part standard, one part of which WEIGHS the "extent to which the digital output protection technology or recording method accommodates consumers' use and enjoyment," but NO part of which requires the continued availability of any consumer copying. I emphasize WEIGHS because it is not determinative, the FCC can consider it if it wants to. The FCC TECHNICALLY might not be preventing consumers from making digital copies itself, but they ARE requiring adoption of a technology that is inherently designed to restrict or prevent consumer copying. -While the FCC also makes a BIG point of claiming this ruling does not cover most consumer electronic devices, this is again rather deceptive. ("digital VCRs, DVD players and personal computers that are not built with digital tuners installed are not required to comply with the new rule." is the quote from the same summary.) AGAIN, rather deceptive, in two ways. The Order has its own special category and regulations for devices where the tuner/demodulator is separate from the signal processor, but they are designed to work together. An example would be a PC card with a DTV tuner built in, and separate hardware/software for handling the signal. Another example could be a digital tuner as part of a stereo component system, linked to other stereo components. In most such cases, the tuner would have to meet special FCC "Robustness" requirements in how it passed the signal to other components. The second way the FCC's claims are deceptive is the more troubling of the two, and that is the compatibility problem I spoke of above. Arguably right now a TiVO or a DVD recorder with no tuner might not be covered, but after 2005, that same TiVO or DVD probably won't be compatible with the new FCC-governed DTV television set. ***THIS is the REAL problem. Whiles the FCC says the device is not covered, after 2005, in many cases it just won't work. *** The new FCC compliant DTV tuner, with its outputs restricted to analog or some copy-protected digital output, won't be able to transmit freely copiable digital output, but only a NEW copy-protected digital stream standard. So while the rule technically doesn't cover most consumer electronic devices, it mandates an important category of them (tuners) adopt a new technology that will surely cause compatibility problems with other devices. (The FCC acknowledges one example of the potential for significant incompatibility in footnote 47 on pg. 10 of its 72 page order, but keeps right on representing otherwise in press releases.) -The Order recognizes not all tuners are sold to consumers as a finished product, and so the FCC has also initiated a new regulatory reporting and compliance regime for intermediate sellers. The Order requires any tuner component manufacturer that sells a tuner demodulator (i.e. the actual receiver, even if not yet attached to a television tube, or PC card, or circuit board for a combo TV/VCR, etc.) OR certain downstream products designed to handle DTV content to get a WRITTEN promise from the buyer that the buyer will comply with the "approved copy protection" standards, and the buyer must file that written promise with the FCC. If the buyer doesn't comply, it is an FCC violation. - Black Market activity and criminalization of common consumer behavior are likely problems. Importation of non-compliant devices after 2005 is an FCC offense, and no exception exists for individual consumer importation. Live in Seattle, cross over to Victoria, BC to take advantage of the strong American dollar? Don't buy just any TV set there after next July. The FCC is a little inconsistent on this point, though, it does allow US manufacture after 2005 of non-compliant devices FOR EXPORT. (Quote from order: "The requirements of this subpart do not apply to Demodulators, Covered Demodulator Products or Peripheral TSP Products manufactured in the United States solely for export.) ------------------------------------- -Ethan Ackerman _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) (snip) "Eds" <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote in message news:<bop7dj$7i0for the FAA "Flag rule," it does not take affect until 2005, I > > believe. That means, upgrade your system in 2004 and plan on keeping > > it for awhile. Or buy your system in another country. (Yes, this is > > a real great way to help US computer and entertainment hardware > > manufacturers compete....NOT!) > > Do you have a link for more info about this? > > Eds

2003-11-11 13:39:02-05:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:11:25 GMT, Ian Merrithew <optimus2861@my-deja.com> wrote: >"Eds" <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote in >news:bont87$h03$1@hercules.btinternet.com: > >> I'm sorry, but no matter what they say, TV is in the public domain and >> enforcing copyright would, I think ,be a lot harder than with CD >> copying, say, where you normally have to pay to get hold of it. > >You'd be 100% wrong on that opinion. Broadcasting or performing a work >in public does not in any way affect the copyright on that work. >Methinks you have some reading to do here: > >http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ I think the key word in his post is "enforcing". Unless someone is making copies in order to sell or otherwise make money from them, it may be a lot harder to win a court judgement over something that's available for free. I'm not saying there are no damages since the availbility of shows on the net undermines sponsor supported television and even future DVD sales but the programs are still free, over the air. Technology is outpacing current laws. Downloading an episode commercial free isnt much different then copying at home with a vcr or TIVO that can eliminate the commercials or even just manually fast forwarding through them without watching the sponsor's messages. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-11 14:43:28+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Eds <callmerazor@hotmael.com>)


Thanks, Susan "Susan" <susangg@goldrush.com> wrote in message news:5a50f82d.0311110352.cb10eb5@posting.google.com... > You may want to visit the politech site or maybe even subscribe. > It's a great source of info on all things relating to politics and > technology, especially vis a vis freedom issues. Here's a recent post > on the FCC flag issue that explains it in detail. > > [Ethan is an attorney in Washington. --Declan] > > --- > > From: "Ethan Ackerman" <eackerma@u.washington.edu> > To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan@well.com> > Subject: RE: "broadcast flag" - the details > Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:09:56 -0500 > > [[Feel free to attribute to me, this is just my 2 cents, and is not > attributable to any past, present or future employers.]] > > Declan, > This is a final order from the FCC - effectively the law of the land > unless > a court overturns it. > > A few big-picture thinkers with some foresight (Jamie Love at the > Consumer > Project on Technology) recognize that this is roughly the DMCA-ization > of > over the air digital broadcast, and are struggling against similar > efforts > right now as they are pushed at WIPO and other international treaty > processes. > > Summary: > What this Order means is that after June 2005 EVERY device that can > receive > over the air Digital Television (DTV) broadcasts OR is designed to > handle > DTV streams from a tuner must be capable of recognizing the "broadcast > flag" > and following FCC's rules for content protection. The FCC in the > order > says > they mean "EVERY DTV device", and explicitly includes PCs with tuner > cards, > etc. > > The details: > -The Order identifies the ATSC DTV flag stand as the official > "broadcast > flag," a bit of code at the beginning of the digital bit stream that > signals > the stream is protected. (See > http://www.atsc.org/document_map/psip.htm for > nitty-gritty.) > IMPORTANTLY, the FCC doesn't REQUIRE broadcasters to flag every DTV > broadcast, it just say IF flagged, this particular ATSC flag must be > used. > (i.e. any broadcaster , from your local PBS station to NBC's nightly > news > stream to FOX's special broadcast of the Matrix, COULD still broadcast > unflagged DTV.) > > -This issues is mostly separate from the copy protections on cable TV > and > satellite, which have had some type of protections for a while. This > Order > applies to over the air digital television equipment (including e.g. > HDTV) > > -The Order requires all covered devices manufactured after July 1, > 2005 > accept the broadcast flag and follow a set of rules for handling DTV > content > with the flag. (This is not a retroactive rule, manufactures can make > whatever they want before then, and consumers don't "have" to go out > and buy > new equipment on July 1, but see comments below on how this will > effectively > "force" consumers to buy new equipment.) > > -The FCC Order requires that every covered device can only handle the > protected content in "7 ways," (roughly: unrestricted conversion or > transmission to analog, digital output to a few legacy low-end digital > displays, or digital format or output ONLY with some type of "approved > copy > protection.") > > -The Order requires that every covered device that passes content to > another > covered device do so only in certain "Robustly" protected ways, to > prevent > unauthorized distribution. The FCC roughly defines "Robust" as not > accessible to the average consumer, with several specific examples: > PCMCIA > busses, SmartCards, PCI cards are all declared NOT Robust, as is > anything > that can be overcome with decompilers, debuggers, EEPROM readers, > screwdrivers, jumpers, or a soldering iron. CPU and memory busses are > all > declared "Robust." > > -The FCC indicated in their ruling that the formal process for > approving > each "copy protection scheme" will be decided in a subsequent > rulemaking, > but also enacted interim standards. > > -The interim standards allow anyone who believes they have a good > standard > to "certify" to the FCC that it is good, and disclose several aspects > of it. > After 20 days of public comment (and 10 each for rebuttal and > counter-rebuttal, if necessary) the FCC will look at all comments and > either > approve or deny each submitted standard. > Manufactures will be able to comply with any of the approved > standards, > so > if the FCC approves more than one, they can pick and choose. > ---------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------- > my comments & observations: > > - The FCC makes a BIG point of claiming this is to prevent "Internet > redistribution" and NOT to restrict individual consumer copying or > uses. > ("consumers' ability to make digital copies will not be affected; the > broadcast flag seeks only to prevent mass distribution over the > Internet." > is the quote from FCC summary at > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240759A1.pdf) > This is NOT TRUE, and rather deceptive of the FCC. Consumers' ability > to > make digital copies WILL BE affected. > The text of the order basically only allows flagged content to be > copied or > transmitted to devices that have "approved copy protection." The FCC > requirements for an "approved copy protection" are a 4-part standard, > one > part of which WEIGHS the "extent to which the digital output > protection > technology or recording method accommodates consumers' use and > enjoyment," > but NO part of which requires the continued availability of any > consumer > copying. I emphasize WEIGHS because it is not determinative, the FCC > can > consider it if it wants to. > The FCC TECHNICALLY might not be preventing consumers from making > digital > copies itself, but they ARE requiring adoption of a technology that is > inherently designed to restrict or prevent consumer copying. > > -While the FCC also makes a BIG point of claiming this ruling does not > cover > most consumer electronic devices, this is again rather deceptive. > ("digital > VCRs, DVD players and personal computers that are not built with > digital > tuners installed are not required to comply with the new rule." is the > quote > from the same summary.) > AGAIN, rather deceptive, in two ways. The Order has its own special > category and regulations for devices where the tuner/demodulator is > separate > from the signal processor, but they are designed to work together. An > example would be a PC card with a DTV tuner built in, and separate > hardware/software for handling the signal. Another example could be a > digital tuner as part of a stereo component system, linked to other > stereo > components. In most such cases, the tuner would have to meet special > FCC > "Robustness" requirements in how it passed the signal to other > components. > > The second way the FCC's claims are deceptive is the more troubling of > the > two, and that is the compatibility problem I spoke of above. Arguably > right > now a TiVO or a DVD recorder with no tuner might not be covered, but > after > 2005, that same TiVO or DVD probably won't be compatible with the new > FCC-governed DTV television set. ***THIS is the REAL problem. Whiles > the > FCC says the device is not covered, after 2005, in many cases it just > won't > work. *** > The new FCC compliant DTV tuner, with its outputs restricted to analog > or > some copy-protected digital output, won't be able to transmit freely > copiable digital output, but only a NEW copy-protected digital stream > standard. So while the rule technically doesn't cover most consumer > electronic devices, it mandates an important category of them (tuners) > adopt > a new technology that will surely cause compatibility problems with > other > devices. (The FCC acknowledges one example of the potential for > significant > incompatibility in footnote 47 on pg. 10 of its 72 page order, but > keeps > right on representing otherwise in press releases.) > > -The Order recognizes not all tuners are sold to consumers as a > finished > product, and so the FCC has also initiated a new regulatory reporting > and > compliance regime for intermediate sellers. The Order requires any > tuner > component manufacturer that sells a tuner demodulator (i.e. the actual > receiver, even if not yet attached to a television tube, or PC card, > or > circuit board for a combo TV/VCR, etc.) OR certain downstream products > designed to handle DTV content to get a WRITTEN promise from the buyer > that > the buyer will comply with the "approved copy protection" standards, > and the > buyer must file that written promise with the FCC. If the buyer > doesn't > comply, it is an FCC violation. > > - Black Market activity and criminalization of common consumer > behavior > are > likely problems. Importation of non-compliant devices after 2005 is > an > FCC > offense, and no exception exists for individual consumer importation. > Live > in Seattle, cross over to Victoria, BC to take advantage of the strong > American dollar? Don't buy just any TV set there after next July. > The FCC is a little inconsistent on this point, though, it does allow > US > manufacture after 2005 of non-compliant devices FOR EXPORT. (Quote > from > order: "The requirements of this subpart do not apply to Demodulators, > Covered Demodulator Products or Peripheral TSP Products manufactured > in > the > United States solely for export.) > ------------------------------------- > > -Ethan Ackerman > _______________________________________________ > Politech mailing list > Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ > Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) > > > > > > > > > (snip) > > "Eds" <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote in message news:<bop7dj$7i0for the FAA "Flag rule," it does not take affect until 2005, I > > > believe. That means, upgrade your system in 2004 and plan on keeping > > > it for awhile. Or buy your system in another country. (Yes, this is > > > a real great way to help US computer and entertainment hardware > > > manufacturers compete....NOT!) > > > > Do you have a link for more info about this? > > > > Eds

2003-11-11 18:11:25+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Ian Merrithew <optimus2861@my-deja.com>)


"Eds" <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote in news:bont87$h03$1@hercules.btinternet.com: > I'm sorry, but no matter what they say, TV is in the public domain and > enforcing copyright would, I think ,be a lot harder than with CD > copying, say, where you normally have to pay to get hold of it. You'd be 100% wrong on that opinion. Broadcasting or performing a work in public does not in any way affect the copyright on that work. Methinks you have some reading to do here: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ -- Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org Dartmouth High Gym Ball Hockey League page at http://24.138.1.228:2655/

2003-11-11 19:47:05+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Eds <callmerazor@hotmael.com>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:bla2rv02m7bte7c0rcfshdssocv35idh5c@4ax.com... > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:11:25 GMT, Ian Merrithew <optimus2861@my-deja.com> > wrote: > > >"Eds" <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote in > >news:bont87$h03$1@hercules.btinternet.com: > > > >> I'm sorry, but no matter what they say, TV is in the public domain and > >> enforcing copyright would, I think ,be a lot harder than with CD > >> copying, say, where you normally have to pay to get hold of it. > > > >You'd be 100% wrong on that opinion. Broadcasting or performing a work > >in public does not in any way affect the copyright on that work. > >Methinks you have some reading to do here: > > > >http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ > > I think the key word in his post is "enforcing". Unless someone is making > copies in order to sell or otherwise make money from them, it may be a lot > harder to win a court judgement over something that's available for free. > I'm glad someone understood my point. Technically, yes, the copyright owner can insist on their right (until the whole lot is overtunred come the glorious day, but I digress), but in practise they are already giving it away. It would be likeme giving away free Cds of my music, then trying to take the recipients to court for playing them to their friends.

2003-11-12 03:17:04+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Ian Merrithew <optimus2861@my-deja.com>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:bla2rv02m7bte7c0rcfshdssocv35idh5c@4ax.com: > I think the key word in his post is "enforcing". Unless someone is > making copies in order to sell or otherwise make money from them, it > may be a lot harder to win a court judgement over something that's > available for free. That isn't the way copyright infringement works. Just because the copyright holder chose to distribute his work in a public medium (TV broadcast), doesn't give anyone else the right to distribute it in another medium (internet) without the holder's consent. The holder *retains* the exclusive right to distribute (or not distribute) his work over the internet. You'd still be found liable for infringement, and there are statutory damages that can be pinned on you even if you don't sell it. > I'm not saying there are no damages since the availbility of shows on > the net undermines sponsor supported television and even future DVD > sales but the programs are still free, over the air. [Insert argument about TV not being "free", but being "ad-supported" here -- dunno if I agree or even care on this point] > Technology is outpacing current laws. Oh, no question. But it's the **AA organizations that have the wallets^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ears of Congress, I'm afraid :-P. Actually -- it might be more accurate to say technology is outpacing the current *business models* that Hollywood depends on, especially the record labels. It's a lot harder to monopolize internet distribution of copyrighted works then it is to monopolize physical distribution; the costs for a new player to get into the market are a lot smaller. Setting up a new webserver is a lot cheaper than setting up new CD production and distribution facilities. > Downloading an episode commercial free isnt much different then > copying at home with a vcr or TIVO that can eliminate the commercials > or even just manually fast forwarding through them without watching > the sponsor's messages. Well, I can't agree with that; if you downloaded it, then someone else had to *upload* it (distribution), and that someone else likely did that without the copyright holder's consent. Whammo! Copyright infringement. That's who RIAA is suing, remember; not the downloaders, the *uploaders*. (Argh! I gotta quit talking about this on this NG, it's OT! :-) -- Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org Dartmouth High Gym Ball Hockey League page at http://24.138.1.228:2655/

2003-11-14 16:09:26+00:00 - Re: Download Angel eps Question - (Phoenix <phoe_bbb@hotmail.com.invalid>)


"Eds" <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote in news:boo38r$cn4$1@titan.btinternet.com: > > "Phoenix" <phoe_bbb@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message > news:boo1n7$kur$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk... >> "Eds" <callmerazor@hotmael.com> wrote in >> news:bont87$h03$1@hercules.btinternet.com: >> >> > What precisely is the license agreement when you watch a >> > broadcast program? Do you remember signing one? In fact, >> > wait, I didn't agree they could wobble the ether that >> > permeates my body, just so some folks can watch a TV >> > show. It's my ether and I'll do what I like with it! If >> > I want to keep a record of its wobbles on my computer, I >> > will, and I will share that record with my pals online. >> > >> > I'm sorry, but no matter what they say, TV is in the >> > public domain and enforcing copyright would, I think ,be >> > a lot harder than with CD copying, say, where you >> > normally have to pay to get hold of it. >> > >> > Not that the legalities bother me much, because property >> > is theft, right, so I say go right ahead and download >> > that ep. I can't watch s5 any other way, as I don't live >> > in the US. They didn't even finish showing s3 in the UK >> > as far as I recall. >> > >> > Eds >> >> You do know that even in the UK taping from TV is >> technically illegal? As is taping from the radio. >> >> As far as taping broadcast shows you are allowed to tape >> as long as you erase after so many weeks, or maybe a few >> months. Ridiculous eh? And it's only legal if it's for >> your own use, so if you lend it out you are breaking the >> law. The fact that you don't know the law is no defence. >> >> However, as nobody takes any notice they are unlikely to >> do anything about it, but they *could* if they had a mind >> to. >> >> As for downloading, quite a few ISP's over here have sent >> out letters warning their subscribers for doing so. But it >> isn't really downloaders they are after, it's uploaders. >> P2P like Kaaza and BitTorrent force you into being an >> uploader in order to download, so if they catch you >> they'll have you by the short and curlies. >> >> Don't know why people don't use the binary group on Usenet >> it's much quicker and more under the radar. More >> complicated to use though. There is also IRC. >> >> I wouldn't touch Kaaza or BiTorrent with a tenfoot pole. >> >> Heh there is a website on the 'net charging $10 a year for >> "unlimited downloads" of movies, and you purchase their >> software and can get as much as you want. Turns out this >> software is Kaaza. Ya have to admire some peoples cheek. >> ;) >> >> Phoe > > We are all lawbreakers. Get over it. There is nothing for me to "get over". I don't give a shit about the law, and I both download and upload. I was pointing out that you were wrong in your statement that there was nothing the authorities could do. There certainly is if they've a mind to, and the ones they have been cracking down on have been P2P users. In fact if you read the forums at www.suprnova.org you'll see there were reports of people getting warnings from their ISP about this. One guy who recieved such a notice managed to get them to admit that they weren't too bothered about his downloading but they are bothered that he is *uploading*. ISPs have the authorities on their backs just like individuals. I think his ISP was NTL but I couldn't swear to it. > Downloading without uploading is leeching Not on Usenet it ain't. Leeching is actually *encouraged*. Many groups can get incensed with people uploading stuff willy nilly because ISP newservers often only have a 2 day retention. If you don't have organised posting then good files can be pushed off the servers by shite and people are then constantly uploading partial files with a "here is what I have" and requesting fills for the rest. Some of the movie groups are an absolute nightmare. Usenet downloaders often use a premium paid server to pick up the slack, and they have better retention and completion rates. IRC and P2P make a big thing out of not being a 'leecher' but not only does being forced to upload put them in the firing line if their ISPs crack down, but not everybody has high end equipment. Uploading a 400mb file can make your computer unusable for anything else for the rest of the day. That might be ok for schoolkids who can leave it uploading while they are off to school, but for those who need their computers running for work..... IMO the safest and best way for downloading regularly (especially large amounts) is the usenet binary groups. No queues, no hoping others don't disconnect before you have your file, and no guilt if you are unable to upload yourself. The downside is there is a steeper learning curve as the files don't come as ready to play mpegs. The only time I use P2P is for passing files on to a handful of people who don't have access to a newserver. A program called FileShare, and it creates a webpage from a folder on my comp so they can download. It's efficent but very very slow and I can barely do anything else on the comp. I guess the same speeds as Kaaza and BitTorrent (have used both in the past). Usenet always downloads at the max your ISP allows. Of course the very simplest way if one just has one weekly episode they want is to use a website set up for such a purpose. Episodes are usually avi and split into pieces, and it's very safe for the downloader but a pain in the arse when sites keep getting shut down because of copyright violation, and they have to move elsewhere. But then BitTorrent sites frequently move about too, but I suppose they do have the advantage that you can get the 'seed' file from IRC so you don't have to worry about finding the websites if they vanish. <shrug> Phoe -- I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. The Big Bad Board ~ the Spikecentric AtS Forums Recaps by The Kneecappers - Usenet - Chat - Journals http://www.bigbad.net (To email remove .invalid from the email address)