In my opinion, for this sort of thing when you erase the movie you just created, if your just watching these shows in the private of your own home and not burning the shows and selling them to everyone in the world, does it really matter whether its legal or not?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 51 of 51
-
Check out the Band...feel free to PM me with opinions: http://www.purevolume.com/beneathitall
-
Originally Posted by SEALs1230
-
Its been interesting to read this thread through. In Finland,where I live, its by no means illegal to record tv broadcastings for home use. It doesn't matter wheter you keep the commercials or not. It is always 100% legal. Of course, you are not allowed to sell these recordings at any extent.
Also DVD-copying for personal use has been legal so far. We'll see if that's going to be changed in the near future. Hope not. -
Originally Posted by ROF
Just joking, i never really thought about it that way. I guess I wasnt classifying piracy as serious of a crime as murder, I do see your point though
Check out the Band...feel free to PM me with opinions: http://www.purevolume.com/beneathitall -
ad skipping? murder? how can we possibly be comparing these???
to understand this issue a little better one should try this mental exercise i call follow the money.
advertisers pay billions of dollars to media organisations to let them advertise their product inbetween the shows on their tv stations. this money goes to pay for many things, such as broadcasting exec's salaries, but also a lot of it goes to pay to make the shows we all love. so we're expected to watch the ads, to help pay for the shows.
but many of us also pay in other ways, such as license fees or service contracts, and we feel rather put out by the idea that we are asked to pay twice. the money we pay also goes towards making those shows, so the broadcasters dont want to get too heavy with us for fear that we will end up telling them to get stuffed, and they will lose money. if they let you off, however, they could end up losing the advertisers, and losing money. so they have to do a bit of nimble footwork between the two, and this often involves lawyers, as these things often do.
the media companies and the government are friends, because the government wants the media to be nice to them and because broadcasting makes money for them too. so when the broadcasters want to reduce the instances of people skipping ads because of new technology, the government wants to seem like it's helping their business friends. but it can't be too heavy, because the same viewers are voters, and voters must be given what they want, or they might not vote for you again. so they have to do a bit of nimble footwork between the two, and this often involves lawyers, as these things often do.
the vast majority of law is an ever changing, constantly revised ocean of opinions, viewpoints, pressure groups and vested interests. it is rarely about 'right' or 'wrong'. it is almost always about the act of change, not the change itself. we are engaged in a continuous struggle to enforce our opinion of what that law should be, forcing our viewpoints across through word and action. it is a noble process - it's called Democracy.
so dont tell me that my not looking at beer ads is the same as murder. I'm not saying it's right, i'm not saying it's wrong. i am saying it's not murder and should never be discussed as though it might somehow be the same thing.never absorb anything bigger than your own head -
Folks its an analogy. I'm sure he picked the most heinous of all crimes since we'd all agree its illegal regardless of where its done, which is the point he was trying to make regarding copyright infringement. I think its obvious he's not comparing the severity of the actions.
-
Originally Posted by Radixmind
Both have an accomplice and a victim.
Both are crimes punishable by fines and jail time.
Both cause disruptions far beyond the victim/accomplice.
They are more alike then you think. Are they the same thing? Of course not, but neither is rape and murder, yet they are both crimes where the victim is ocassionally treated like a criminal in the high strung media. No difference here. I'm not trying to compare severity, merely pointing out they are extremely similiar crimes. -
Oh, I guess you were comparing them to a certain extent ROF. Sorry, you're on your own then.
-
Comparing them as crimes that are illegal and have both a victim and an accomplice, Yes. All crimes have a certain severity. That severity can even vary between the cases. I could be driving and murder somebody by falling asleep at the wheel. Someone else could murder somebody by bludgeoning them. Difference in severity, same crime charged.
-
Nobody's brought up the fact the we are the ones who ultimately pay for the advertisements to begin with as the price of the products are inflated to cover the advertisement costs.
-
Originally Posted by ROF
Originally Posted by ROF -
Really? There had been murder charges levied against a guy in the next town over last summer when he fell asleep at the wheel and killed a waitress and her two children after he crossed the median and plowed into her vehicle. He's currently in jail on a murder conviction, not manslaughter. He awoke after hitting the guard rail, failed to control his vehicle and murdered that family. The crime effected more than just the victims and the accomplice. His charge Vehicular Homicide, his jail time is 8-15 years, which means he'll probably be out and driving before the end of the decade.
A similiar crime to skipping commercials, NO WAY. The punishment however is very similiar to a copyright offense. -
Vehicular homicide is not murder, its... vehicular homicide. Its a specific crime created by statute in some states which removes the malice aforethought and intent to kill requirements of murder and it carries a lighter sentence than murder.
And ROF 8-15 years is alot more than 5 which is the max for criminal copyright infringement...plus unless you are willfully profiting off of your infringements than it will almost never be anything other than a civil infringement.
And who is this accomplice you keep mentioning? Any crime can have an accomplice and any crime other than conspiracy can be done without an accomplice. I don't see how this is a parallel between criminal copyright infringement and murder any more than to say that both can be committed by a male.
But getting back on topic... -
Not to nitpick, but what is the most common synonym for the word homicide?
-
Kill?
"Shut up Wesley!" -- Captain Jean-Luc Picard
Buy My Books -
Well it sure as hell isn't murder. Homicide means to kill someone, that's all. Included in this general category are all forms of homicide including murder, depraved heart murder, felony murder, justifiable homicide, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, reckless manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and many more which exist by statute only in certain jurisdictions.
All of these are forms of homicide but carry vastly different burdens of proof and possible sentences. -
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/441306be-2eb6-11da-9aed-00000e2511c8.html
Much of what is broadcast over the airwaves is copyrighted – the broadcaster licenses the film or song from a copyright holder and then plays it to you at home. What you probably do not know is that nearly 50 years ago broadcasters in some countries got an additional right, layered on top of the copyright. Even if the material being broadcast was in the public domain, or the copyright holder had no objection to redistribution, the broadcaster was given a legal right to prevent it – a 20-year period of exclusivity. The ostensible reason was to encourage broadcasters to invest in new networks. The US did not sign this treaty. Has the US broadcast industry stagnated, crippled by the possibility that their signals will be pirated? Hardly. Copyright works well and no additional right has proved necessary. Has WIPO commissioned empirical studies to see if the right was necessary, comparing those nations that adopted it with those that did not? Of course not. This is intellectual property policy: we do not need facts. We can create monopolies on faith.
But now a new diplomatic conference is being convened to reopen the issue. Doubtless the goal is to abolish this right? There was never any empirical evidence behind it. Broadcasters in countries that did not adopt it have flourished, albeit casting envious eyes to the legal monopolies possessed by their counterparts in more credulous nations whose politicians are more deeply in the pockets of broadcasting interests. The right imposes considerable costs. It adds yet another layer of clearances that must be gained before material can be digitised or redistributed – compounding the existing problems of “orphan works”, those whose owners cannot be identified. So is the broadcast right on the way out? No.
In the funhouse world that is intellectual property policy, WIPO is considering a proposal to expand the length of the right by 30 years and a US-backed initiative to apply it to webcasts as well. After all, we know that the internet is growing so slowly. Clearly what is needed is an entirely new legal monopoly, on top of copyright, so that there are even more middlemen, even deeper thickets of rights.
You Are the MPAA: A Broadcast Flag Update
September 26, 2005
Imagine you're a happy-go-lucky conglomerate of Hollywood media companies. Faced with some tweaks to your business model that you'd rather not contemplate, your members have conceived of an ingenious alternative: compelling tech companies to implement shoddy copy-protection on every digital AV-enabled computer in the land.
Let's call this cunning plan the "Broadcast Flag."
Your "Broadcast Flag," while undoubtedly quite brilliant and only slightly delusional, has been running into a few problems recently. First, after it was torn to shreds by techies in its drafting committee, you had to shout more than usual to get the FCC to adopt it.
Whereupon it was promptly smacked down in court, which decided that dictating what people can do with free over-the-air digital media after it reaches their home devices is too vast a power, even for the FCC.
Oh well. There's still Congress, right? Ah, if only it were that simple. Turns out Congress has a quite unnatural fear of signing legislation that meddles in the intimate relationship between American couch potatoes and their TVs. Plus, nowadays the whole political process is scrutinized by millions of Net types bleating about "transparency" and the need to rein in "special interests." Which, believe me, does not help.
Sometimes you must wonder: How will I ever manage it? Pull yourself together, media conglomerate! You're a big brave incumbent industry. You can do it!
Let's consider your options...
The traditional way of creating conglomerate-friendly law is to get somebody to draft a bill that incorporates your ideas. Let's call our hypothetical bill the "Save Our Cartel Privilege by Unfeaturing People's Television Act of 2005," or SOCPUPT for short.
Getting backing for consumer-hostile legislation isn't easy -- as you discovered that with that Induce Act fiasco. Also, congresscritters love to discuss bills; they consult, they hold hearings. Frankly, you've had it up to here with all the, "that's not in the public interest" business, thank you very much.
So how about slipping a stealth amendment into a bill that can't be defeated? Like an appropriations bill, Congress's money mega-bill? No one would notice a little Broadcast Flag language in there, right? All you need is one SOCPUPT-supporting senator to sneak it onto an innocent committee agenda, and...
Argh! Just when you're about to do that, thousands of those pesky Net busy-bodies barge into the committee, blowing your cover. Curse you, Interweb!
Okay, don't panic. Think really devious.
One especially sneaky way to get an amendment passed is to smuggle it into a reconciliations bill. Reconciliation is the mirror image of appropriations. Appropriations is about taxes; reconciliation is all about making cuts. Because Congress dearly loves to appear thrifty, reconciliations has special fast-track status. It can't be filibustered, it's almost impossible to amend once agreed upon, and it only needs a plain majority to pass.
Of course, with such good intentions, it's a perfect vehicle for piggybacking unpopular provisions. Except...there's the Byrd rule. Under this point of order, any senator can get a reconciliation clause thrown out if it's not really about government cuts.
This will be tricky, since the Broadcast Flag essentially demands government interference with every digital AV product on the market.
Ah, but how about -- no, that's far too sneaky. But...perhaps...
Listen. Suppose our sympatico politicos carve out a bunch of Digital TV provisions that, in fact, do have something to do with government finance? Suppose they stick those provisions in the Senate Commerce Committee's reconciliations bill (due October 26th), where they're practically untouchable?
But some key clauses on which these provisions depend will be omitted. Consequently, it will it be vitally important that Congress passes another Digital TV bill to fill the gaps.
That Digital TV bill will contain -- oh, look at that! -- the Broadcast Flag language. Oh, and the RIAA's Digital Radio Broadcast Flag, too, just for the sake of completeness.
Now our friendly politicians can tell their colleagues that the Digital TV Completion (née SOCPUPT) bill is an essential part of the reconciliation process, and must be passed as a matter of urgency before the compulsory reconciliations come into effect!
Oh, yes. That is good. Really, you've outdone yourself, major Hollywood conglomerate!
Your only remaining challenge: choosing language to put in to the reconciliations bill that actively requires a Broadcast Flag in the secondary bill.
And what happens when you publish this legislation, and the cursed Net-enabled public finds out what you're up to?
Find out over the next month, as the MPAA and RIAA join forces to sneak their flags through Congress -- in the next episode of: the Broadcast Flag saga! -
GullyFoyle that really doesn't have anything to do with this. The broadcast flag doesn't stop you from using Tivo and removing commercials...it just stops you from distributing the copy. Its also not even being used...yet.
And that second article looks like it was written by a 3rd grader. -
Originally Posted by adam
For the record, I don't agree with what I'm writing here. I think you should be able to watch TV however you choose to watch tv. You pay alot of money for cable or satelite broadcasts and once that signal reaches your home you should be able to watch it however you wish. Technology allows you to fast forward or rewind live TV. Removing commercials is just another form of that method. -
a lawyer of my acquaintance once said, "never try to confulse a legal issue by bringing morality into the equation." i think they were kidding, but it's an interesting point
if all law dealt only with things that could be defined in simple moral terms, what would all the lawyers do?
i consider it a good rule of thumb that when an individual calls upon an easy moral absolute to shore up their opinion in a fairly complex debate, then that person is either a fool who has not understood the finer points of the debate, or a charlatan who wishes to hide the general weakness of their argument.
this is a thread about legal copyright. it deals with an area of law that has been under constant change since it's inception, and as such we should all aknowledge that it is not, in any way, nor does it resemble, any law that states that killing people is wrong.
perhaps we can all agree on that?never absorb anything bigger than your own head -
People die everyday in the name of peaceful gods. It's a moral issue to them. People die everyday in the name of territory. It's a moral issue to them. People break the copyright law everyday. It's a moral issue to them as well. Some may intrepret it as an immoral issue, but to those who do so, they believe in some way that they are justified by commiting those acts. Law enforcement has no moral implications, they merely enforce the laws as written, however law makers deal with morals everyday of their judicial lives.
Is it murder when someone breaks into your home and you shoot them?
Is it murder when you are drunk, swerve, and kill another?
Is it murder when you go hunting and shoot a deer?
Is it murder when you are ordered by your government to stop the advancement of an enemy through the launching of ballastics?
Depending on your morals, you may answer Yes or No to any of those. However, I'm quite sure there are laws in most places that define which are considered murder and which aren't.
In similiar respect, because of the ever changing laws that govern copyright, timeshifting, and dubbing, I am quite sure the moral implications of the particular case are applied to make the laws by which those actions are either justified or not under the law.
Similar Threads
-
Legal Dr Who downloads
By mikesbytes in forum Off topicReplies: 3Last Post: 16th Oct 2008, 11:28 -
legal downloads
By Mr anderson in forum Off topicReplies: 3Last Post: 13th Jun 2008, 22:28 -
Is it legal?
By schematic2 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 17Last Post: 5th Jan 2008, 03:29 -
Is this legal?
By vid83 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 17Last Post: 13th Dec 2007, 21:03 -
Dr Who Downloads (and it's legal)
By guns1inger in forum Off topicReplies: 2Last Post: 12th May 2007, 22:37