[tavilach]

I've never been a big TV fan, but I've been watching Alias via Netflix, and I really like it. I'll be starting the third season soon, but I'd rather not have to wait for the fourth season to be released to DVD before I can watch any of the episodes (I don't have a TV in my room, and I don't have much of a use for a TV tuner...except for this...which isn't worth it).

Is there anything that I can do? I see some sites like tv.org, but I don't know if they're scams, or illegal, or what...

[Mafia]

bittorrent.

[tavilach]

Originally posted by Mafia:
bittorrent.

Illegal.

[Mafia]

Originally posted by tavilach:
Illegal.

if you download a tv show at all it is illegal because you are making a copy of a copy. so there is no legal way to download a tv show. unless its straight from the producers

[tavilach]

Originally posted by Mafia:
if you download a tv show at all it is illegal because you are making a copy of a copy. so there is no legal way to download a tv show. unless its straight from the producers

That's what I thought, but I was wondering if there was any other way, ala Netflix...

[Mafia]

Originally posted by tavilach:
That's what I thought, but I was wondering if there was any other way, ala Netflix...

i don't think they have one with tv shows since people get payed per time its showed on tv. but i'm not positive.

[t6hawk]

Originally posted by tavilach:
Illegal.

Oh? Explain the difference between BT and TV shows and a VCR? Last I heard VCRs aren't illegal and that the p2p police in the USA i mean the MPAA/RIAA seem to be focusing on Music and Movies, not TV shows. Hell I still download the odd show but I normally end up getting the season on DVD anyways. The TV shows are put up for public broadcast with no disclaimers on them at all regarding copying for personal use. Movies (sometimes music) are the only places I've seen the warnings, restrictions and fine print.

one of the shows I like even has all the episodes from the last 5 seasons posted on their website in RM format. THe quality may suck but it is still good and it's free (even if it is 2 weeks behind the air dates). I'd love other shows to do that on their websites. May decrease the sharing of eps on BT etc...unless people are going for quality.

[TheJoshu]

Originally posted by t6hawk:
Oh? Explain the difference between BT and TV shows and a VCR? Last I heard VCRs aren't illegal and that the p2p police in the USA i mean the MPAA/RIAA seem to be focusing on Music and Movies, not TV shows.

Unfortunately that doesn't address the question of legality. And I should expect that the Motion Picture Association and Recording Industry Association should be focusing on music and movies...

[cpt kangarooski]

t6hawk--

Oh? Explain the difference between BT and TV shows and a VCR?

Bit Torrent is a technology for reproducing and distributing information via the Internet. TV shows are audiovisual productions viewed on television sets, which are originally broadcast, or transmitted by cable or satellite, as opposed to first being available to the public in theaters or on videotape, DVD, etc. A VCR is a device for playing and reproducing audiovisual information properly input to it; one use is to record TV shows input via a cable, onto a tape.

Gosh, I would've thought most people at least knew about the latter two.

Last I heard VCRs aren't illegal

Well, you have to understand, things don't violate copyright law. People do.

So the mere existence of a VCR isn't illegal. It could be argued that making, trafficking, and using VCRs is illegal, as those are activities people are engaged in.

As it happens, using VCRs may or may not be illegal; it depends on the specific circumstances involved in the use. Because there are sufficient potential legal uses for it, it's been held that merely making and trafficking in VCRs isn't illegal based upon illegal uses of the devices.

Therefore making or trafficking in Bit Torrent technology is likewise pretty likely legal.

But there's nothing to say that all uses of BT are legal. Just as with VCRs, there are surely some uses that are illegal. As long as there's a significant possibility of legal uses, it doesn't matter for manufacturers etc. But it does matter very much for the people engaged in the legal or illegal uses!

So let's talk uses:

Unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work in a copy (e.g. taping a TV show) is prima face copyright infringement per 17 USC 106(1).

In some instances, a defense to infringement may be available. The most popular defense for taping TV shows is fair use, codified at 107. While any use has the potential to be a fair use, only some uses actually are fair uses. Whether or not a use is in fact a fair use will depend on the outcome of a multi-part analysis (see 107) based on the specific facts surrounding the use. The mere fact that person A engages in a specific fair use, however, is largely irrelevant in determining if person B engages in a specific fair use. If their circumstances are sufficiently similar, then perhaps they're both fair users. But even if they are engaged in the same overall type of use, if the circumstances are such that it's unfair, it's unfair.

Thus, some, but not necessarily all taping of TV shows with VCRs is legal.

Using BT with regards to TV shows is not necessarily fair use just because some use of VCRs along similar lines is a fair use. We have to study it carefully. Myself, I see several key differences. First, there is likely a worse outcome for the defendant with regards to the fourth prong. Second, in some cases there is arguably a greater commercial use involved (using BT as a substitute for a pay tv subscription as opposed to paying for a channel and merely time shifting). Third, BT inherently both uploads and downloads together. While there might be some way to argue that downloading a show is a parallel to time shifting it (not that time shifting is always fair), there is no defense whatsoever with regards to uploading. It's never a fair use to merely help someone else in a fair use. The help must be itself fair. This sort of distribution (see 106(3)) is really indefensible.

The TV shows are put up for public broadcast with no disclaimers on them at all regarding copying for personal use. Movies (sometimes music) are the only places I've seen the warnings, restrictions and fine print.

100% irrelevant. The law informs you as to what is and isn't legal. Copyright holders don't have to warn you themselves, and they pretty invariably give notice in these cases.

Also n.b. that copyright holders of copyrights for TV shows have in fact been engaged in legal action, just like other copyright holders and copyright holder associations.

[Mafia]

^^ didn't read so if i repeat him sorry. with a vcr you are allowed to make a copy of a tv show for personal use because they still get the ratings from your tv being tuned in to the channel during taping. but if you make a copy of the show for your friend then you are breaking the law because the tv show is not getting the rating since your friend who watched the show never had his tv tuned into the channel. with bittorrent is just like a vcr making different copies for different people (in a hypothetical sense). but on a non moral level i don't think to many companies are out to get tv show downloaders.

[Xeo]

My personal feelings on the subject is that if it isn't available elsewhere, then downloading it isn't a problem. Hell, if the downloads of the HD broadcasts had the commercials in tact, ABC, NBC, etc probably wouldn't care about sharing them. Their advertisers will still get the viewers and still pay them for it. Those networks broadcast their shows for free anyway to anyone with a TV and an antenna.

I regularly download certain weekly shows that I can't otherwise watch. Like when I was in Japan, there was just no other way for me to watch those shows. It's not legal but morally it doesn't bother me. My morals aren't shaped around the law. Some of my actions are, though. Just not this one.

That said, don't let this topic turn into a "where do we get x show" or "what are good sites for finding stuff" or it will have to be shut down.

[cpt kangarooski]

Mafia--

^^ didn't read so if i repeat him sorry.

Don't worry, there's no danger of that.

with a vcr you are allowed to make a copy of a tv show for personal use because they still get the ratings from your tv being tuned in to the channel during taping. but if you make a copy of the show for your friend then you are breaking the law because the tv show is not getting the rating since your friend who watched the show never had his tv tuned into the channel.

First: no, none of that is true in any way at all.

Second: you don't understand how TV ratings are collected. While arguably modern cable, tivo, and perhaps satellite receivers could be used to gather ratings, that's really not all that helpful since you don't know who was actually watching the box. It could've been anyone. That's not useful in selling advertising time. Advertisers want demographic information.

TV ratings are normally collected by finding people who are willing to be specially monitored. They'll log (either manually or via a device) who specifically is watching what.

And seriously man, if I had a TV with nothing hooked up to it but a pair of rabbit ears, how the hell would anyone know (without spending a huge amount of effort) what I was watching?

Xeo--

Hell, if the downloads of the HD broadcasts had the commercials in tact, ABC, NBC, etc probably wouldn't care about sharing them.

Untrue, and besides, the networks are just one of the parties involved, and frequently not the copyright holders.

Plus the ads are seperate copyrighted works, and the companies that hold those copyrights could sue you for sharing them too. (see the AdCritic affair)

And of course, ads vary by geographic area usually, and advertisers don't pay for pirates viewing the ads, and networks et al don't like it when they don't get paid.

I regularly download certain weekly shows that I can't otherwise watch. Like when I was in Japan, there was just no other way for me to watch those shows. It's not legal but morally it doesn't bother me. My morals aren't shaped around the law. Some of my actions are, though. Just not this one.

Fine with me. I don't think that copyright has any moral or immoral value at all. (well, maybe piracy is a little bit moral in that it helps preserve and disseminate creative works, which is good, but not amazing)

[Diggory Laycock]

Originally posted by Xeo:
... ABC, NBC, etc probably wouldn't care about sharing them. Their advertisers will still get the viewers and still pay them for it. Those networks broadcast their shows for free anyway to anyone with a TV and an antenna. ...

Um.. - I'm not sure where you get your torrents - but all the ads are (kindly) stripped out of my downloads.

[demograph68]

Damn, I download the X-Files.... I'll trash them now, thanks...

[John Q. Smith]

Google (and yahoo, i think) are working on video search features, that should let you view shows from NBC, ABC, PBS, and a few other stations. Perhaps that will be your legal solution to this dilema.

[lavar78]

Originally posted by Diggory Laycock:
Um.. - I'm not sure where you get your torrents - but all the ads are (kindly) stripped out of my downloads.

He was saying they wouldn't have a problem if the ads were left in the shows.

[Wiskedjak]

What would happen if P2P TV episodes included the original commercials? Commercials are what pay for the show, if they were included in the P2P files there would be less of an argument against the distribution of them through P2P mediums. Sure, you can skip past the commercials, but so can you with a VCR.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Diggory Laycock:
Um.. - I'm not sure where you get your torrents - but all the ads are (kindly) stripped out of my downloads.

I said "Hell, if the downloads of the HD broadcasts had the commercials in tact..."

cpt kangarooski, you make a valid point about the copyrights. I don't mean to say that it becomes legal if you leave commercials, just that the advertisers for the network still get the views they are after. I suppose the local ones they insert, as you mentioned, can get skipped and you end up watching something from the other side of the country, but even still, most network TV has network-wide commercials so those advertisers get hit.

I do have a hard time wrapping my head around the Ad Critic thing though. The whole point of commercials is so that people watch them. I don't know why they care if people watch them during a TV show or whether they choose to use their own bandwidth to view them. It's strange, but I guess its their choice. But that becomes a good argument against what I am saying, since if they would shut that down, they would also shut down the whole-show viewing.

Either way, I have not heard of cases of TV show sharers being attacked. And so far, have there been any cases of any sharers (kazaa, bt, etc) being criminally charged? Or has it all been civil suits? Shouldn't criminal charges apply for this stuff?

[cpt kangarooski]

Seriously guys, the presence or absence of commercials is entirely irrelevant as to the legality of reproducing and distributing copies of the shows. In fact, it arguably makes things worse, since now you're infringing on even more copyrights, held by even more rightsholders.

Xeo--

I don't mean to say that it becomes legal if you leave commercials, just that the advertisers for the network still get the views they are after.

Not really. I've seen copies of shows on the net that were recordings of broadcasts from, e.g. Denmark. I guarantee that Danish advertisers do not care about whether I see their ads. I'm not buying their products anyway; they don't have them here. And the ads are difficult to understand due to the language barrier (while Japanese ads are impossible to understand due to their being bizarre as all get out).

Even within the US, say, ads are frequently regional. It doesn't matter if we all see ads for local businesses that are hundreds or thousands of miles away. Those advertisers aren't really being helped.

Either way, I have not heard of cases of TV show sharers being attacked. And so far, have there been any cases of any sharers (kazaa, bt, etc) being criminally charged? Or has it all been civil suits? Shouldn't criminal charges apply for this stuff?

They have been. There's been numerous C&Ds, which are amazingly polite on the part of the copyright holders. More serious actions have been taken against others.

Copyright is more normally enforced civilly. This is appropriate; if the copyright holder wants to sue, let him do it. If he doesn't care, why should anyone else, given that it is an offense against him specifically? In particular, why should we want criminal enforcement given that defending against it will drain the pocket of the defendant, reducing the awards a civil suit could have brought, and the fines (if any) don't go to the copyright holder. And it's a burden on the government, so it wastes tax dollars to do what civil litigants ought to do for themselves. Copyright suits are typically very easy, and have sizable potential for damages, repayment of fees (or contingency fees), so it's not hard or especially costly to bring them. Trademark and patent infringement aren't crimes either, and neither are most trade secret misappropriations. Why the special treatment for copyright?

Nevertheless, there are criminal copyright provisions, but the government traditionally doesn't prosecute much, and aims at larger scale commercial pirates, since they have a lot of higher priorities, like violent criminals.

[TheBadgerHunter]

The networks don't care so why worry about the legalities? The only thing they have only cracked down on is broadcasting and sharing tv shows before they're aired.

So if there is a law thats not enforced should you abide by it? I don't see why.

[cpt kangarooski]

TheBadgerHunter--

The networks don't care so why worry about the legalities?

They do care. Of course, networks frequently are not the copyright holders for the programs they carry, so actions may come from elsewhere.

Plus, the statute of limitations is three years with a discovery rule, so it doesn't matter if they don't care now. If they care next year, you're still in trouble.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
TheBadgerHunter--


They do care. Of course, networks frequently are not the copyright holders for the programs they carry, so actions may come from elsewhere.

Plus, the statute of limitations is three years with a discovery rule, so it doesn't matter if they don't care now. If they care next year, you're still in trouble.

They never have before so i don't think they'll start anytime soon. The cost of prosecuting and limited impact of downloaders makes it a very unattractive option.

So since it isn't under criminal law and since they are not interested (whoever the appropriate party may be) in pursuing it I see nothing wrong or even illegal.

[cpt kangarooski]

TheBadgerHunter--

They never have before so i don't think they'll start anytime soon.

They have already, and anyway, there has been a huge increasing trend in suits against small tme infringers lately. The music and movie industries didn't tend to sue small timers either.

The cost of prosecuting and limited impact of downloaders makes it a very unattractive option.

True. That's why you shoot them a nasty letter to begin with. But BT is the favored way of doing this, and all BT downloaders are also uploaders. So while trackers et al are yet more attractive targets, they're not the only ones.

So since it isn't under criminal law and since they are not interested (whoever the appropriate party may be) in pursuing it I see nothing wrong or even illegal.

First, it usually is criminal. Check out 17 USC 506. Second, it is illegal regardless of whether or not a civil suit ever is filed.

Whether or not you think it's wrong, I don't care. I don't think it's wrong. But I'm not deluding myself as to legality. And if you want to take a risk with breaking the law, that's fine, but don't do it carelessly.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:

They have already, and anyway, there has been a huge increasing trend in suits against small tme infringers lately. The music and movie industries didn't tend to sue small timers either.

I have never heard of a major network suing downloaders. Perhaps you are referring to other industries which have much more to lose from file distribution.

True. That's why you shoot them a nasty letter to begin with. But BT is the favored way of doing this, and all BT downloaders are also uploaders. So while trackers et al are yet more attractive targets, they're not the only ones.

They are the only ones. While it is easy to find everyone who is uploading its hardly wise to sue each and every one of them. Taking out the tracker and the original seeder cuts of distribution and the source.

First, it usually is criminal. Check out 17 USC 506. Second, it is illegal regardless of whether or not a civil suit ever is filed.

Whether or not you think it's wrong, I don't care. I don't think it's wrong. But I'm not deluding myself as to legality. And if you want to take a risk with breaking the law, that's fine, but don't do it carelessly.

No it is usually under copyright law which is not criminal so it is up to the violated to decide to take action and how to do so. It is still illegal but not being criminal (at least not in north america) the risk is considerably lower.

Of course. Most people don't realize how naked they are using BT and so far nothing has been done to make it more secure, probably the author fearing that it won't be seen as a harmless system. There are far more secure channels though.

[cpt kangarooski]

TheBadgerHunter--

I have never heard of a major network suing downloaders.

Because the networks likely aren't the copyright holders. They may be owned by them, or just working together. (E.g. many networks have reruns of Star Trek. But it's Paramount that holds the copyright.)

They are the only ones. While it is easy to find everyone who is uploading its hardly wise to sue each and every one of them. Taking out the tracker and the original seeder cuts of distribution and the source.

Yes. You start by suing the highest level person you can -- especially if they have assets. But this is only the start of a process of working your way down.

No it is usually under copyright law which is not criminal

Okay, see, you need to read stuff when it's cited to you as the reason why you're wrong.

17 USC 506
(a) Criminal Infringement.— Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either—
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

18 USC 2319
Criminal infringement of a copyright
(a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17—
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
(c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(2) of title 17, United States Code—
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.

While not all infringers are subject to criminal prosecution, some are. Hell, very many are. It's a federal felony. And the trend in the bills in Congress lately has been to make even smaller infringements criminal.

[andreas_g4]

I confess: Downloading "24" now. If I have to go to prison, please wait until the last episode. Then it was worth it at least.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by andreas_g4:
I confess: Downloading "24" now. If I have to go to prison, please wait until the last episode. Then it was worth it at least.

Please send all confessions and pleas for mercy to the Department of Justice; it's their decision.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by andreas_g4:
I confess: Downloading "24" now. If I have to go to prison, please wait until the last episode. Then it was worth it at least.

Heh, I just finished downloading the last episode of Battlestar Galactica last night (SkyOne has broadcast the entire series already, and it's only on episode 4 in the US). I finished converting this episode this morning, and I'll be burning all 13 episodes onto DVD tonight.

I confess. Come and get me.

And, of course, I'll buy the official DVD when it comes out, as I always do. Seriously.

Maury

[Diggory Laycock]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Heh, I just finished downloading the last episode of Battlestar Galactica last night (SkyOne has broadcast the entire series already, and it's only on episode 4 in the US).

Wow, the UK ahead in a US TV series - that's very unusual.

[tavilach]

Originally posted by Xeo:
My personal feelings on the subject is that if it isn't available elsewhere, then downloading it isn't a problem. Hell, if the downloads of the HD broadcasts had the commercials in tact, ABC, NBC, etc probably wouldn't care about sharing them. Their advertisers will still get the viewers and still pay them for it. Those networks broadcast their shows for free anyway to anyone with a TV and an antenna.

I regularly download certain weekly shows that I can't otherwise watch. Like when I was in Japan, there was just no other way for me to watch those shows. It's not legal but morally it doesn't bother me. My morals aren't shaped around the law. Some of my actions are, though. Just not this one.

That said, don't let this topic turn into a "where do we get x show" or "what are good sites for finding stuff" or it will have to be shut down.

It bothers me a bit morally, but not much. Morality is normally the issue I have with piracy, but not in the case of TV shows. In any case, morality isn't everything, and while I also don't base my morality on legality, I do want to respect legality.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by tavilach:
It bothers me a bit morally, but not much. Morality is normally the issue I have with piracy, but not in the case of TV shows. In any case, morality isn't everything, and while I also don't base my morality on legality, I do want to respect legality.

Oh big deal. Based on most religions you're probably in Hell's express lane anyway.

As for legality.. you'll never be found out since you aren't reproducing or distributing. I would shy away from BitTorrent. Carracho and KDX afford some degree of privacy.

[tavilach]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
Oh big deal. Based on most religions you're probably in Hell's express lane anyway.

As for legality.. you'll never be found out since you aren't reproducing or distributing. I would shy away from BitTorrent. Carracho and KDX afford some degree of privacy.

Oh no you didn't, girlfriend. *Slap*

Did I say anything about religion? A truly moral person is not one who follows the rules for fear of punishment. Screw religion, screw hell, and screw you for trying to turn this into a religious thread. I know the difference between right and wrong (to an extent), and I like to do what's right.

...and as for legality, it's not about being found out. I just like to know that I'm not breaking the law in the first place.

[His Dudeness]

Originally posted by Diggory Laycock:
Um.. - I'm not sure where you get your torrents - but all the ads are (kindly) stripped out of my downloads.

http://www.superhappyfuntorrentz.net/

[His Dudeness]

Originally posted by Diggory Laycock:
Wow, the UK ahead in a US TV series - that's very unusual.

I'm downloading them as week speak.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
I'm downloading them as week speak.

If you're referring to Battlestar Galactica, they're pretty good. I'm only about halfway through the last episode, and I accidentally saw the last scene as I was running through to edit out the ending credits. Oh well, it didn't ruin anything -- and if what happens is what I think happens, it leaves the show with a potentially cool cliffhanger. Again, all I saw was one frame with no audio -- so who knows.

Maury

[Millennium]

Originally posted by tavilach:
Is there anything that I can do? I see some sites like tv.org, but I don't know if they're scams, or illegal, or what...

Sites which offer episodes for download are only legal if they've gotten permission from the creators of the TV show to do this.

I only know of one TV show which has ever given such permission to people: South Park. If there are others I'd be glad to hear them, but if a TV show's creators have not given permission, then any and all download sites offering that show are illegal.

Fair use doesn't protect you in this case, because fair use doesn't cover redistribution, which is what servers do. As for downloading from these sites, it's not covered even if you have a license for viewing (say, through purchasing a DVD) because you're technically trafficking in stolen goods. The only legal way to get these episodes on your computer is to either legally buy the DVDs and rip them yourself, or find some other means of getting permission from the show's creators.

[wdlove]

Interesting, will have to wait and see how it all turns out.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by tavilach:
Oh no you didn't, girlfriend. *Slap*

Did I say anything about religion? A truly moral person is not one who follows the rules for fear of punishment. Screw religion, screw hell, and screw you for trying to turn this into a religious thread. I know the difference between right and wrong (to an extent), and I like to do what's right.

...and as for legality, it's not about being found out. I just like to know that I'm not breaking the law in the first place.

Huh? Turning this into a religious thread? I simply assumed based on your idea that abiding by laws is morally right that you were vaguely religious.

So unless you're willing to break some laws I'm afraid you won't be getting tv episodes of anything outside of DVD or the creator.

[cpt kangarooski]

Millennium--

Sites which offer episodes for download are only legal if they've gotten permission from the creators of the TV show to do this.

That is not quite correct. Permission is only valid if it comes from the copyright holder. That may be someone other than the creator, and in the world of TV shows, probably is. (e.g. again for Star Trek, the copyright holder appears to be Paramount. The creator, Gene Roddenberry, could not give actual permission, since the copyright wasn't his.)

Fair use doesn't protect you in this case, because fair use doesn't cover redistribution, which is what servers do.

That is outright false. Any otherwise infringing activity, including distribution, may be a fair use. That is to say, the possibility is open, but since each use must be carefully analyzed under the fair use test (see 17 USC 107) whether or not it actually is a fair use varies. That said, while it is possible that some or all of those distributors are fair users, it's extremely unlikely IMO.

As for downloading from these sites, it's not covered even if you have a license for viewing (say, through purchasing a DVD)

There is no such thing as a license for viewing, and buying a DVD is a simple sales transaction; there is no license involved.

because you're technically trafficking in stolen goods.

That is incorrect. Copyright infringement is not stealing by any measure. And it is entirely possible for a license -- if there were one -- to permit people to lawfully reproduce works based upon unlawfully made copies.

The only legal way to get these episodes on your computer is to either legally buy the DVDs and rip them yourself, or find some other means of getting permission from the show's creators.

Actually, if the DVDs are encrypted with CSS -- as most are -- then ripping them is typically illegal under 17 USC 1201, since it would require circumventing an access control measure. It is difficult to lawfully get around that.

Really the best legal method for putting TV shows on a computer is probably to record them from TV and digitize them, provided that such reproduction would constitute a fair use. Alternatively, you could reproduce a DVD in its encrypted state and decrypt it with an authorized player, but this is on somewhat less tested ground.