The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Inspired by Jubba's comments in the ipod thread, I decided to open a thread about media piracy; software, movies, TV Programmes etc.
My view is that there are easy ways to justify piracy and it's pretty commonplace because it's easy to do. But if you look at it objectively it's still the same as stealing, albeit not stealing anything physical.
I used to be happy doing it too, I admit. Swapping Spectrum or C64 games in the school playground was easy for anyone who had a midi system with a double tape deck and with a bit of stopping and starting you could easily get 6 or more games on a C60 tape.
At the same time Video tapes and recorders made it easier to get to see films not long after they were at the cinema, with even a local video rental shop distributing copies of Robocop and Gremlins long before they were on TV or available to rent. It was also useful for seeing banned films, which allowed me to watch Zombie Flesh Eaters courtesy of someone in the charity I worked for and Clockwork Orange, which quickly got copied many times.
Nowadays its digital copies from the internet which are the easiest to get hold of. Just downloading a bittorrent client and going to google will get most of the games, movies or TV series you could wish for.
The issue, though, is this. If you're stealing intellectual rights rather than physical material it does seem to muddy the waters of what is right or wrong.
For example, if you download and watch a TV series that you can see on TV already, is that wrong? How about if that series was available on a channel you didn't have? If you then deleted the file after watching wouldn't that be the same as going to a friend's house to watch?
Likewise with films, if you go to the cinema and watch Avatar, for example, then download it and THEN go and buy it when it finally comes out, is that wrong?
With games I would think most people would download them and not go and buy the originals afterwards. My first PSP was hacked and easy to use with copied games, but I didn't bother with the current one as I wanted to support what Sony and the developers were doing with the cheaper games to download. Same with the app store, there are some fantastic apps at great prices from small developers who would suffer if people pirated their games.
As a big supporter of small developers I'm concerned over the affects that piracy on PSP, iPod and even consoles has on the company and on prices for those who choose to pay for them.
My view is that there are easy ways to justify piracy and it's pretty commonplace because it's easy to do. But if you look at it objectively it's still the same as stealing, albeit not stealing anything physical.
I used to be happy doing it too, I admit. Swapping Spectrum or C64 games in the school playground was easy for anyone who had a midi system with a double tape deck and with a bit of stopping and starting you could easily get 6 or more games on a C60 tape.
At the same time Video tapes and recorders made it easier to get to see films not long after they were at the cinema, with even a local video rental shop distributing copies of Robocop and Gremlins long before they were on TV or available to rent. It was also useful for seeing banned films, which allowed me to watch Zombie Flesh Eaters courtesy of someone in the charity I worked for and Clockwork Orange, which quickly got copied many times.
Nowadays its digital copies from the internet which are the easiest to get hold of. Just downloading a bittorrent client and going to google will get most of the games, movies or TV series you could wish for.
The issue, though, is this. If you're stealing intellectual rights rather than physical material it does seem to muddy the waters of what is right or wrong.
For example, if you download and watch a TV series that you can see on TV already, is that wrong? How about if that series was available on a channel you didn't have? If you then deleted the file after watching wouldn't that be the same as going to a friend's house to watch?
Likewise with films, if you go to the cinema and watch Avatar, for example, then download it and THEN go and buy it when it finally comes out, is that wrong?
With games I would think most people would download them and not go and buy the originals afterwards. My first PSP was hacked and easy to use with copied games, but I didn't bother with the current one as I wanted to support what Sony and the developers were doing with the cheaper games to download. Same with the app store, there are some fantastic apps at great prices from small developers who would suffer if people pirated their games.
As a big supporter of small developers I'm concerned over the affects that piracy on PSP, iPod and even consoles has on the company and on prices for those who choose to pay for them.
Page:
I don't think iTunes is popular in Japan. CDs there are extremely expensive, so people just rent the CDs and make copies of them. So the cost of one song on iTunes is the same for renting a CD.
pb wrote:
> HM wrote:
> I pay for
> my songs on iTunes,
>
> gah! You know you're using the most expensive place to buy
> them?
From reading this thread, it appears we don't need to buy anything :p
I think everyone does it to an extent - as pete was saying, many people are blissfully unaware we are doing anything wrong. Lots of things obviously fall into a grey area withing the law and it's knowing where to draw the line (or failing that...not getting caught!).
I tend to stay as legit as possible.
> HM wrote:
> I pay for
> my songs on iTunes,
>
> gah! You know you're using the most expensive place to buy
> them?
From reading this thread, it appears we don't need to buy anything :p
I think everyone does it to an extent - as pete was saying, many people are blissfully unaware we are doing anything wrong. Lots of things obviously fall into a grey area withing the law and it's knowing where to draw the line (or failing that...not getting caught!).
I tend to stay as legit as possible.
I remember every Saturday going to the video store and spending 20p just to have a go on the arcades. So 49p for a really good iPod app is a bargain.
Yarr.
tnc wrote:
> No, the argument only works for VHS and DVD recorders, as their
> sole purpose is to record copyrighted material off the TV
Can they not be used to make legitimate copies of your non copyrighted camcorder films ?.
What if the home movie you made on your camcorder has copyrighted music on its audio track ?.Whether its music added later or music that just happened to be playing in the background,you are supposed to obtain a licence for that.
My point is that copyright law is broken by most people in one form or another and some of time they are blissfully unaware that they are doing anything wrong.
> No, the argument only works for VHS and DVD recorders, as their
> sole purpose is to record copyrighted material off the TV
Can they not be used to make legitimate copies of your non copyrighted camcorder films ?.
What if the home movie you made on your camcorder has copyrighted music on its audio track ?.Whether its music added later or music that just happened to be playing in the background,you are supposed to obtain a licence for that.
My point is that copyright law is broken by most people in one form or another and some of time they are blissfully unaware that they are doing anything wrong.
A VHS recorder's sole purpose is to copyright material? I think you are throwing assumptions rather loosely there.
Like saying an iPod with recording capabilities is solely designed to copy copyrighted tunes. :S
I used a VHS for watching VHS, very rarely for copying. And if then, only for copying home videos I remember........
(Whilst we are at it.... ahhhh.... VHS. Good old days)
Like saying an iPod with recording capabilities is solely designed to copy copyrighted tunes. :S
I used a VHS for watching VHS, very rarely for copying. And if then, only for copying home videos I remember........
(Whilst we are at it.... ahhhh.... VHS. Good old days)
pete_21 wrote:
> tnc wrote:
>
> Recording something you have already paid to watch isn't piracy.
> You aren't stealing it as you've already paid for the license to
> watch the channel itself
>
> You're probably mixing it up slightly with redistribution
> rights.
> You aren't technically allowed to copy copyrighted CDs etc, nor
> are you allowed to sell these copies on.
>
> You're allowed to record something off the television because,
> as
> I say, you've already paid for the programme within the license
> and it's for your own personal use.
>
> I may or may not know of someone who recorded Aliens (which as
> far as I'm aware 20th Century Fox still own the rights to) on CH4
> (I think it was) the other night then may or may not have burned
> a copy onto DVDR using their PVR/DVD recorder for a friend.I'm
> struggling to determine whether that was an act of sweet,lovely
> kindness or evil,heinous piracy.Be damned if I know ? :S
>
> tnc wrote:
>
> Plus, otherwise, VHS and DVD recorders would be banned, surely
>
> What about camcorders ?,nasty evil things.Being used to make
> illegal copies of films which are only just in the cinema.What
> about photocopiers and scanners ?,you could make copies of the
> entire works of English literature with those.If you took that
> argument to its conclusion then using half of our electrical
> items would need to be outlawed.
>
> The point is,I don't think people really know or care what's
> legal/illegal in the copyright world anymore.If something they
> want is available then they will obtain it by whichever means
> they have at their disposal.
No, the argument only works for VHS and DVD recorders, as their sole purpose is to record copyrighted material off the TV
Camcorders are used for many other purposes, and it's only a true minority that actually use them to record films. Same for photocopiers etc, they have a primary purpose other than one which is to record copyrighted material
> tnc wrote:
>
> Recording something you have already paid to watch isn't piracy.
> You aren't stealing it as you've already paid for the license to
> watch the channel itself
>
> You're probably mixing it up slightly with redistribution
> rights.
> You aren't technically allowed to copy copyrighted CDs etc, nor
> are you allowed to sell these copies on.
>
> You're allowed to record something off the television because,
> as
> I say, you've already paid for the programme within the license
> and it's for your own personal use.
>
> I may or may not know of someone who recorded Aliens (which as
> far as I'm aware 20th Century Fox still own the rights to) on CH4
> (I think it was) the other night then may or may not have burned
> a copy onto DVDR using their PVR/DVD recorder for a friend.I'm
> struggling to determine whether that was an act of sweet,lovely
> kindness or evil,heinous piracy.Be damned if I know ? :S
>
> tnc wrote:
>
> Plus, otherwise, VHS and DVD recorders would be banned, surely
>
> What about camcorders ?,nasty evil things.Being used to make
> illegal copies of films which are only just in the cinema.What
> about photocopiers and scanners ?,you could make copies of the
> entire works of English literature with those.If you took that
> argument to its conclusion then using half of our electrical
> items would need to be outlawed.
>
> The point is,I don't think people really know or care what's
> legal/illegal in the copyright world anymore.If something they
> want is available then they will obtain it by whichever means
> they have at their disposal.
No, the argument only works for VHS and DVD recorders, as their sole purpose is to record copyrighted material off the TV
Camcorders are used for many other purposes, and it's only a true minority that actually use them to record films. Same for photocopiers etc, they have a primary purpose other than one which is to record copyrighted material
Marvellous.
Timmargh wrote:
> Alfonse wrote:
> This moral superiority will get you nowhere Timmargh [...]
>
> I wasn't trying to feel or come across as morally superior, as I
> said: I've done it myself. I was just trying to say that there's
> no point trying to justify it.
Oh, then I totally agree.
> Alfonse wrote:
> This moral superiority will get you nowhere Timmargh [...]
>
> I wasn't trying to feel or come across as morally superior, as I
> said: I've done it myself. I was just trying to say that there's
> no point trying to justify it.
Oh, then I totally agree.
> Timmargh wrote:
> If by "life" you actually mean "pirates."
>
> And not the "Arr, matey!" variety.
pete_21 wrote:
> I actually think piracy is a bit of a daft name for it TBH.Then
> again I doubt Copyright Thieves Of The Caribbean would have done
> much at the box office.
"Bootlegging" is the correct term, I think.
> If by "life" you actually mean "pirates."
>
> And not the "Arr, matey!" variety.
pete_21 wrote:
> I actually think piracy is a bit of a daft name for it TBH.Then
> again I doubt Copyright Thieves Of The Caribbean would have done
> much at the box office.
"Bootlegging" is the correct term, I think.
Page: