If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Torrent Freak)   On "The Simpsons" tonight, Bart teaches Homer how to download pirated movies/episodes. In real life Fox sues and wins $10 million dollar judgment against Simpson "pirate"   (torrentfreak.com) divider line 82
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

2803 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 06 Jan 2014 at 10:27 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-06 03:48:09 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: The Simpsons stop being funny in their 9th season. Your comment means they were funny in their 17th season.

The fact is, the Simpsons have been funny all along. You're just no longer in college, and all your co-workers are like "did you see what's on 60 minuets?" And you are all like- "Yeah,Benghazi!" Then they nod their heads in that shallow adult way, wile slowly raising their corporate entity coffee with the Italian size issues.

Somewhere, in the deep part of your chest, a small long haired voice cries out, "dude, we were gonna be cool, we were going to change the world with our hipness" But it Is fading, your youthful appreciation of Bart's rebellious antics, Lisa's rockin' liberalism, and Homers well meaning neglect and Marges home spun authoritarianism.

You are an adult now, you've put away your need for a crazy little town called Springfeild USA. The barnacles off age have encrusted the heart of your inner child. Somewhere in the distance, a coyote howls morn fully intones a funeral dirge for your optimism and exclaims in a legendary country voice, "I am coyote"


i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-06 04:12:04 PM  

ReapTheChaos: If these Hollywood types weren't so damn greedy, these kind of sites would't exist. I occasionally watch TV shows on those streaming sites, usually it's stuff that isn't available elsewhere like Netflix or Hulu. As for Hulu, I'm getting to where I avoid them as much as I can these days because their shows have gone from a few 30-45 second commercial breaks to several 90-120 breaks or longer. Basically it's almost as many ads as regular TV.


No, no it isn't.  Maybe it's been a while since you watched broadcast tv or, worse yet, basic cable.  These days It's pretty much 120-240 second breaks... if not longer.

Now take these stream sites, the ones I use will give you a popup when you click on the link, and the site that actually hosts the video shows one 30 second commercial. Obviously these sites wouldn't exist if they weren't making money, so if they're able to make a profit showing one 30 sec ad then why can't these networks do the same? Hell I'd happily watch 2 or 3 ads if it meant I could watch the full show uninterrupted.

Probably because those streaming sites aren't paying for the actual content, thus rendering their costs much, much lower.

Don't get me wrong here... the increasing amount of commercials on Hulu sucks, it's just that I'm not sure they can _legally_ make enough money without the extra commercials.

At least sometimes you can pick a "trailer" and walk away for a few minutes, getting uninterrupted show when you return.
 
2014-01-06 04:12:42 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Why would anybody still be pirating The Simpsons?


Well, this thread alone has several people complaining that it isn't on Hulu or Netflix. Basically, the "I don't own a TV crowd" that can't be bothered to see it the 20 times a day it comes on cable. And they damn sure can't shell out 10-15 bucks for a season on used DVD. Because principles, or something.
 
2014-01-06 04:35:44 PM  
They owe us.
 
2014-01-06 04:43:37 PM  

Farker Soze: Darth_Lukecash: The fact is, the Simpsons have been funny all along.

The fact is it is now a shadow of it's first 10 or so seasons.  This is not a hipster thing to say, not a view due to growing up, it's the simple truth.

Finding a bad episode used to be the exception.  Now it's the rule.


Hmm, that's exactly what a hipster would say.
 
2014-01-06 05:17:32 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So the ads are what did this guy in?

Seems to me like the actual downloading would only be an instance of time-shifting, which I was under the impression was permitted downloading activity.


That would be reasonable, but I don't think that makes it legal. Although obviously what is legal will vary depending on where you are. In the UK, for example, it is perfectly legal to make a backup of a game disc/tape/cartridge that you own to use via an emulator but not legal to download that exact same file over the internet.

I can see this being a similar interpretation. You can legally time-shift material if it comes directly from a legally accessed source such as over the air or satellite transmissions, but not from an unauthorised third party even if you do have access to the material through legal channels.

Ethically, of course, that's another matter entirely. I expect that any reasonable person would accept that there's nothing wrong with obtaining a more conveniently accessed copy of something you already legally have, but as is often the case the law itself isn't so sensible.
 
2014-01-06 05:24:59 PM  

Incorrigible Astronaut: I watched for the first time in at least ten years last night and was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't as good as "classic" 3-9, but "Respecting the Law!" and "If I wanted to pay for commercials I can't skip, I'd sign up for Hulu Plus" made me laugh. It certainly wasn't as bad as Fark threads would lead you to believe.


I thought it was pretty decent overall, but aside from the "Respecting the Law" bit and the Judd Apatow stuff near the end, I think it felt like they ran out of things to say after the first act or so. It's one of the better episodes of this season, but there's been some pretty dire episodes this year too.
 
2014-01-06 05:36:00 PM  
Solution: Go on Social Security, THEN pirate. Even if the bigshots sue they cannot DARE touch a single penny of your Soc. Sec. money, or you can sue them for big bucks.
 
2014-01-06 05:36:19 PM  

EdgeRunner: Darth_Lukecash: Mike_LowELL: You're aware The Simpsons went off the air over a decade ago?

No, see that doesn't follow the correct thought process.

The Simpsons stop being funny in their 9th season. Your comment means they were funny in their 17th season.

The fact is, the Simpsons have been funny all along. You're just no longer in college, and all your co-workers are like "did you see what's on 60 minuets?" And you are all like- "Yeah,Benghazi!" Then they nod their heads in that shallow adult way, wile slowly raising their corporate entity coffee with the Italian size issues.

Somewhere, in the deep part of your chest, a small long haired voice cries out, "dude, we were gonna be cool, we were going to change the world with our hipness" But it Is fading, your youthful appreciation of Bart's rebellious antics, Lisa's rockin' liberalism, and Homers well meaning neglect and Marges home spun authoritarianism.

You are an adult now, you've put away your need for a crazy little town called Springfeild USA. The barnacles off age have encrusted the heart of your inner child. Somewhere in the distance, a coyote howls morn fully intones a funeral dirge for your optimism and exclaims in a legendary country voice, "I am coyote"

Or there was a significant change in the writing staff over the years, and the new team just doesn't have the comedy chops of the originals. For example, everyone remembers "Just don't look" from that early Halloween special not because it's "classic", but because it's funny and still resonates with fresh audiences. Try quoting anything from the last ten Treehouse of Horror episodes and see if anyone cares.

If current Simpsons is good enough for you, then great, go enjoy. But don't pretend it's still as good as it ever was. It's like reverse hipsterism where instead of only liking things before they were cool, you're embracing stuff that used to be cool but isn't any more. Scavenger hipsterism, you might call it.


Or, it's still funny and resonates but you're stuck in the past. Was it good in the first seasons? Yes. Is it good now? Yes.

You kinda have to watch the current seasons with regularity if you're going to harp on them. And if you're watching with regularity, you must have interest. If you're NOT watching and STILL comparing them to past seasons, that's kind of a hollow and biased assessment.
 
2014-01-06 05:46:28 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: LowbrowDeluxe: I agree that this guy was skating significantly closer to whatever moral grey line might exist in this issue than NuSimpsons does to humor.  So I'm not necessarily going to get outraged about the judgement, even though it's clearly and obviously designed to punish and hurt him rather than recover damages.  But there IS something disgusting in this having happened and then the show running this episode.   Even if they didn't intend for it, it comes across as gloating.  What little tv I watch anymore is from link lists like this guy ran. Even so, I don't watch the Simpsons anymore, not because of fear of this sort of thing, just don't care.  But now I'll make sure to keep up that habit.



What the fark, they charge you for the commercials? What's the point in getting Hulu plus then?


1. Ability to stream to PS3/Xbox/Roku
2. Access to a lot more shows/back library
3. Quicker access to new shows
 
2014-01-06 06:14:18 PM  
I catch a new episode every now and then and quality drop-off is obvious. The way I see it, everything up to and including season 8 were classics. Season 9 to 12 were hit and miss; some really good episodes and some really bad ones. Season 13 to ~20 were all resoundingly terrible with really only a handful of watchable stuff. Somewhere around season 21 and onwards have seen things pick up but still no where near the quality of even the good episodes in season 12.

I used to visit WTSO a while back. Was a decent site and the guy in the article is right, if Fox put every episode online to stream and charged $.99 to $1.99 per episode, or offered subscription packages, they'd make a ton of money. Well, even more money.
 
2014-01-06 06:15:53 PM  

Falcon Hunter: You kinda have to watch the current seasons with regularity if you're going to harp on them. And if you're watching with regularity, you must have interest.


I watch it because I'm waiting for Bob's Burgers to come on. Newer Simpsons has its moments, but even if you can separate the show from its previous track record (though it doesn't help that the show frequently does callbacks to much better episodes; like Mr. Bergstrom's random reappearance) it is pretty bad and has pretty obvious flaws.
 
2014-01-06 07:25:05 PM  
I still watch it and never miss a new episode after my kids started watching it last year. As they worked their way through the later seasons I was pleasantly surprised by how funny it still is.

I think the problem is that from season 3-9 they were still doing something new and edgy. Now everyone's trying to do it, and some are actually pulling it off. Now it's just one good show among many like it.
 
2014-01-06 07:29:58 PM  

FreakyBunny: I still watch it and never miss a new episode after my kids started watching it last year. As they worked their way through the later seasons I was pleasantly surprised by how funny it still is.

I think the problem is that from season 3-9 they were still doing something new and edgy. Now everyone's trying to do it, and some are actually pulling it off. Now it's just one good show among many like it.


http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny

/They did it first, then everyone else did it (possibly better) and it became normal, and then you don't get what the big deal is when you rewatch.
 
2014-01-06 08:01:34 PM  

meyerkev: FreakyBunny: I still watch it and never miss a new episode after my kids started watching it last year. As they worked their way through the later seasons I was pleasantly surprised by how funny it still is.

I think the problem is that from season 3-9 they were still doing something new and edgy. Now everyone's trying to do it, and some are actually pulling it off. Now it's just one good show among many like it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny

/They did it first, then everyone else did it (possibly better) and it became normal, and then you don't get what the big deal is when you rewatch.


that doesn't fit the "Seinfeld is Unfunny" trope; that would describe a situation where someone who not seeing the appeal of, in this instance, The Simpsons because it seems cliche while not recognising that it's only cliche because, ahem, Simpsons did it first. I think that's an extremely weak defense that doesn't really address any complaints about the show and the real problems it has.
 
2014-01-06 08:43:52 PM  

Telos: ReapTheChaos: If these Hollywood types weren't so damn greedy, these kind of sites would't exist. I occasionally watch TV shows on those streaming sites, usually it's stuff that isn't available elsewhere like Netflix or Hulu. As for Hulu, I'm getting to where I avoid them as much as I can these days because their shows have gone from a few 30-45 second commercial breaks to several 90-120 breaks or longer. Basically it's almost as many ads as regular TV.

No, no it isn't.  Maybe it's been a while since you watched broadcast tv or, worse yet, basic cable.  These days It's pretty much 120-240 second breaks... if not longer.

Now take these stream sites, the ones I use will give you a popup when you click on the link, and the site that actually hosts the video shows one 30 second commercial. Obviously these sites wouldn't exist if they weren't making money, so if they're able to make a profit showing one 30 sec ad then why can't these networks do the same? Hell I'd happily watch 2 or 3 ads if it meant I could watch the full show uninterrupted.

Probably because those streaming sites aren't paying for the actual content, thus rendering their costs much, much lower.

Don't get me wrong here... the increasing amount of commercials on Hulu sucks, it's just that I'm not sure they can _legally_ make enough money without the extra commercials.

At least sometimes you can pick a "trailer" and walk away for a few minutes, getting uninterrupted show when you return.


They make their money when the shows airs on TV, everything else is just extra profit. so yes it's a matter of greed. There are people making $10,000 a month on You Tube from nothing but those text boxes popping up at the bottom of the video, so there's plenty of money to be made without showing people 15 minutes worth of ads for an hours worth of show.
 
2014-01-06 08:56:18 PM  

ReapTheChaos: They make their money when the shows airs on TV, everything else is just extra profit. so yes it's a matter of greed. There are people making $10,000 a month on You Tube from nothing but those text boxes popping up at the bottom of the video, so there's plenty of money to be made without showing people 15 minutes worth of ads for an hours worth of show.


So.   They have the copyright (for a limited per -- And I can't even finish that sentence.  Fark you, Disney).  There's 300 years of law giving them the sole right to distribution and licensing of their work.  Their JOB is to make money.  And remember that most TV shows fail.  So the ones that succeed had better go and make tons of money in order to pay for the failed ones.

As long as you're more willing to watch Hulu than pirate (or in the case of 90% of America, figure out how to pirate), they've won.

/And yes, copyright is too damn long.
//And in this respect, Hollywood is like the Arab petrostates.  $400/barrel is awesome right up until every government on earth switches over to natural gas/electric/fracking for their domestic needs and you never sell another barrel of oil ever again.
 
2014-01-06 09:00:58 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So the ads are what did this guy in?

Seems to me like the actual downloading would only be an instance of time-shifting, which I was under the impression was permitted downloading activity.


He was obvious about it, blatantly so, profiting from distribution, AND ignored multiple attempts to peacefully shut himself down.


Know when to quit imo.
 
2014-01-06 10:01:27 PM  

Smackledorfer: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So the ads are what did this guy in?

Seems to me like the actual downloading would only be an instance of time-shifting, which I was under the impression was permitted downloading activity.

He was obvious about it, blatantly so, profiting from distribution, AND ignored multiple attempts to peacefully shut himself down.


Know when to quit imo.


If that is the case then ya he's an idiot for not shutting down at the last possible moment.  Fox is never going to see a dime of this money because no normal person has 10 million dollars.  They should just agree to a small settlement then he should never do this again.


/if you are going to do something illegal set up a corporation first with yourself as a corporate CEO so nobody can touch you,  they can simply go after your corp which when faced with lawsuits and fines simply shut down.
 
2014-01-06 10:17:51 PM  

meyerkev: So. They have the copyright (for a limited per -- And I can't even finish that sentence. Fark you, Disney).


I've been wondering, what should the copyright length be?  I've been thinking 50 years or the life of the author, whichever comes last.  I think that's a reasonable step down from current law.  At that length, an author can profit from his/her work for most of his/her life and the estate can profit in the event of premature death.  50 years seems like a good start, though I'd rather see it around 30, but it's a start.

Of course, that would mean Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, James Bond, and a whole host of other fictional characters would enter the public domain, so fat chance of it happening any time soon.
 
2014-01-06 10:24:05 PM  

rugman11: meyerkev: So. They have the copyright (for a limited per -- And I can't even finish that sentence. Fark you, Disney).

I've been wondering, what should the copyright length be?  I've been thinking 50 years or the life of the author, whichever comes last.  I think that's a reasonable step down from current law.  At that length, an author can profit from his/her work for most of his/her life and the estate can profit in the event of premature death.  50 years seems like a good start, though I'd rather see it around 30, but it's a start.

Of course, that would mean Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, James Bond, and a whole host of other fictional characters would enter the public domain, so fat chance of it happening any time soon.


I'm ok with 75-80 or life of the author.
 
2014-01-06 10:44:18 PM  

Cletus C.: Farker Soze: Darth_Lukecash: The fact is, the Simpsons have been funny all along.

The fact is it is now a shadow of it's first 10 or so seasons.  This is not a hipster thing to say, not a view due to growing up, it's the simple truth.

Finding a bad episode used to be the exception.  Now it's the rule.

Hmm, that's exactly what a hipster would say.


Nice try, yokel, but the Simpsons were never obscure.

This is more like saying that Michael Jackson got worse after Thriller.
 
2014-01-06 11:32:45 PM  

rugman11: meyerkev: So. They have the copyright (for a limited per -- And I can't even finish that sentence. Fark you, Disney).

I've been wondering, what should the copyright length be?  I've been thinking 50 years or the life of the author, whichever comes last.  I think that's a reasonable step down from current law.  At that length, an author can profit from his/her work for most of his/her life and the estate can profit in the event of premature death.  50 years seems like a good start, though I'd rather see it around 30, but it's a start.

Of course, that would mean Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, James Bond, and a whole host of other fictional characters would enter the public domain, so fat chance of it happening any time soon.


At this point, noting that anything that doesn't let Disney have indefinite copyright is dead in the water, I'd almost prefer a N years OR continuing distribution and/or use.   So you have some (low) number of years since you created the work, but you can keep the rights for as long as you are continuing to actively use and distribute the work/world/character/whatever.  Obviously, there's some curlicues to work out, and it has some issues of it's own, but it'd avoid that weird case where you HAVE the copyright, but you aren't USING it, and no one else can use it either which effectively kills the spread of the work.

It might also be worth considering something along the lines of trademarking for fictional characters/universes.  So Disney gets copyright on early Steamboat Willy so long as they're making his early work available, and no one ELSE can use him for money (Fair use) because Disney has the trademark.

It's not an end-all-be-all solution, but it solves some of the problems we're having now.
 
2014-01-06 11:41:15 PM  

meyerkev: ReapTheChaos: They make their money when the shows airs on TV, everything else is just extra profit. so yes it's a matter of greed. There are people making $10,000 a month on You Tube from nothing but those text boxes popping up at the bottom of the video, so there's plenty of money to be made without showing people 15 minutes worth of ads for an hours worth of show.

So.   They have the copyright (for a limited per -- And I can't even finish that sentence.  Fark you, Disney).  There's 300 years of law giving them the sole right to distribution and licensing of their work.  Their JOB is to make money.  And remember that most TV shows fail.  So the ones that succeed had better go and make tons of money in order to pay for the failed ones.

As long as you're more willing to watch Hulu than pirate (or in the case of 90% of America, figure out how to pirate), they've won.

/And yes, copyright is too damn long.
//And in this respect, Hollywood is like the Arab petrostates.  $400/barrel is awesome right up until every government on earth switches over to natural gas/electric/fracking for their domestic needs and you never sell another barrel of oil ever again.


I don't have an issue with copyright law, I see no reason why people shouldn't be able to keep control over their own creations. As I stated above, I have a problem with them being to stupid to realize they could be making tons of money if they simply stopped being so greedy.

If people could go to Fox.com and watch every episode of every show they have ever aired and only had to watch one 15-30 second ad at the start, the majority of these streaming and torrent sites would go away and Fox would be making buttloads of money off of it.
 
2014-01-07 12:13:47 AM  

ReapTheChaos: meyerkev: ReapTheChaos: They make their money when the shows airs on TV, everything else is just extra profit. so yes it's a matter of greed. There are people making $10,000 a month on You Tube from nothing but those text boxes popping up at the bottom of the video, so there's plenty of money to be made without showing people 15 minutes worth of ads for an hours worth of show.

So.   They have the copyright (for a limited per -- And I can't even finish that sentence.  Fark you, Disney).  There's 300 years of law giving them the sole right to distribution and licensing of their work.  Their JOB is to make money.  And remember that most TV shows fail.  So the ones that succeed had better go and make tons of money in order to pay for the failed ones.

As long as you're more willing to watch Hulu than pirate (or in the case of 90% of America, figure out how to pirate), they've won.

/And yes, copyright is too damn long.
//And in this respect, Hollywood is like the Arab petrostates.  $400/barrel is awesome right up until every government on earth switches over to natural gas/electric/fracking for their domestic needs and you never sell another barrel of oil ever again.

I don't have an issue with copyright law, I see no reason why people shouldn't be able to keep control over their own creations. As I stated above, I have a problem with them being to stupid to realize they could be making tons of money if they simply stopped being so greedy.

If people could go to Fox.com and watch every episode of every show they have ever aired and only had to watch one 15-30 second ad at the start, the majority of these streaming and torrent sites would go away and Fox would be making buttloads of money off of it.


Fox just signed a $750 million deal to air Simpsons reruns on FXX and to stream them through FXX's app. If online ad rates are anything like TV ad rates, that's about 33 billion "15-30 second ads at the start."
 
2014-01-07 05:54:57 AM  
Darth_Lukecash [TotalFark]
2014-01-06 12:11:30 PM

LowbrowDeluxe: I agree that this guy was skating significantly closer to whatever moral grey line might exist in this issue than NuSimpsons does to humor. So I'm not necessarily going to get outraged about the judgement, even though it's clearly and obviously designed to punish and hurt him rather than recover damages. But there IS something disgusting in this having happened and then the show running this episode. Even if they didn't intend for it, it comes across as gloating. What little tv I watch anymore is from link lists like this guy ran. Even so, I don't watch the Simpsons anymore, not because of fear of this sort of thing, just don't care. But now I'll make sure to keep up that habit.

What the fark, they charge you for the commercials? What's the point in getting Hulu plus then?
This may shock you, but cable TV also has commercials.
 
2014-01-07 05:56:19 AM  

Incorrigible Astronaut: I watched for the first time in at least ten years last night and was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't as good as "classic" 3-9, but "Respecting the Law!" and "If I wanted to pay for commercials I can't skip, I'd sign up for Hulu Plus" made me laugh. It certainly wasn't as bad as Fark threads would lead you to believe.


I thought it was a good episode, but it really annoys me when any and all metal is called death metal.
 
2014-01-07 06:02:28 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So the ads are what did this guy in?

Seems to me like the actual downloading would only be an instance of time-shifting, which I was under the impression was permitted downloading activity.


That would make sense. I recall a guy in the early 90s who was streaming NFL online and they had a hissy fit. The Canadian courts told them to shove it because he was "rebroadcasting". Things to keep in mind here is that I don't think he had any ads showing and this was before the Copyright reform went through. This reform basically made the laws more punishing for those profiting off of piracy but Joe Public who downloads the latest episode of Simpsons has a limit on how much they can sure for that it makes it not worth them suing.

BTW I found a correlation between the Simpsons sucking and the number of lines that Lisa has.
You do the math.
 
2014-01-07 09:16:09 AM  

Mike_LowELL: You're aware The Simpsons went off the air over a decade ago?


Lol wut?
 
2014-01-07 12:43:08 PM  

js34603: You know what else was funnier ten years ago? Fark. It's truly a shadow of its former self.


This.  Been a long long time since I laughed at a thread the way I laughed at the Honk Bag thread or the ballsack conundrum.
 
2014-01-07 12:49:19 PM  
It is ironic.  I too, prefer all my television show plotlines to coincide flawlessly with their networks business model.
 
2014-01-07 01:16:11 PM  

styckx: What did this idiot think was going to happen?


Pretty much this.  I occasionally will torrent something, (e.g, Breaking Bad) but I'm not going to seed it for longer than it takes to download.  Sorry guys, thanks for the download, it's not worth it to risk the wrath of that *IAA.

This was openly taunting Fox and begging for a response.

/haven't watched the Simspon's since I cut the cord
//don't feel like I'm missing much
///fark cable TV
 
Displayed 32 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report