- This topic has 41 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Consumers educated about piracy, but don’t think its a crime.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9704
Well obviously when there is no recrimations and its so wide-spread!
-
A crime is something that is defined as wrong by law, though both law and right and wrong are simply a factor of the society we currently live in. Since the vast majority of people seem to consider the piracy to be acceptable (in certain forms), it would seem that the law has just not caught up with recent changes in society yet.
I’ve also always defined theft as taking something from someone who is then left without it. Digital information can be copied and spread about with no loss to the owner (I would disagree in most cases with the arguement about loss of potential income), and can only be positive if that which is copied enables a person to achieve things they couldnt previously achieve.
Dave
-
Playing devil’s advocate a bit, but Dave what is the incentive to spend a lot of time effort and money creating something which people want to use and making it so that anyone can get it for nothing? Surely stopping piracy and giving the creator control over his own work can only be good and will encourage creation?
-
nuff said.
-
I feel so guilty after watching all that. I will never again try to copy neverwinter nights onto a floppy disk.
Dave
-
its awful itsn’t it, its a sort of painful funny.
-
Playing devil’s advocate a bit, but Dave what is the incentive to spend a lot of time effort and money creating something which people want to use and making it so that anyone can get it for nothing? Surely stopping piracy and giving the creator control over his own work can only be good and will encourage creation?[/quote:3aeb9109e6]
Yes, there is no doubt that the alternative arguement is also incredibly important, though I would disagree that the creators get nothing for their efforts. Speaking mostly about music and film, each has a variety of alternate income sources which all contribute to the overall profitability of a brand. For music, there are tours (amongst a host of things) which provide a greater return to the musician than the corporation that create them. For film, there is the cinema (which I would attend more as a result of watching an overall greater number of movies), various merchandising and promotional tie ins and so on. One potential flaw with the games industry is that many of those alternate income sources have not been identified and worked upon as much as they should be.
Dave
-
I’ve also always defined theft as taking something from someone who is then left without it. Digital information can be copied and spread about with no loss to the owner (I would disagree in most cases with the arguement about loss of potential income), and can only be positive if that which is copied enables a person to achieve things they couldnt previously achieve.[/quote:c8eedce8b7]
would disagree with this on a number of frontsI’ve also always defined theft as taking something from someone who is then left without it.[/quote:c8eedce8b7]
pretty narrow definition. I prefer: “theft is taking something from someone that that doesn’t person want you to have”. After all, I don’t have to physically have lost something to feel aggrieved at it’s absenceDigital information can be copied and spread about with no loss to the owner (I would disagree in most cases with the arguement about loss of potential income), and can only be positive if that which is copied enables a person to achieve things they couldnt previously achieve.[/quote:c8eedce8b7]
such as enjoyment, for example??!! Don’t get your argument, here Dave -
I prefer: “theft is taking something from someone that that doesn’t person want you to have”. After all, I don;t have to physically have lost something to feel aggrieved at it’s absence[/quote:502234379b]
I’m pretty sure this one leaves a bit to be desired too :) The above definition would include such things as forced land purchases, or a business deal where a company is selling to a competitor or other entity while under duress or financial strain. Also, I see a distinct difference between taking something from someone and taking a copy, though i do believe the tradtional concept of theft is outdated as it refers to disposessing a victim, which isnt necessarily true any more.
Dave
-
http://fnarg.com/floppy.html
[/quote:6ecaa18af0]Oh dear god.
-
Don’t get your argument, here Dave[/quote:fb4c52bf27]
Left it a bit short as I had to get back and do some work :)
As always, society is lagging behind in the understanding and acceptance of human/technological evolution. When we consider laws and meanings for what it is to actually steal something, I dont think that digital medias fall under the same definition – they need to have their own set of rules. As a society we dont yet know what those rules should be, we have yet to find the balance between profitability and social requirements. Personally,
I tend to favour the individual rather than the corporation in those situations, which is where the basis of my arguement comes from.Dave
-
I’m pretty sure this one leaves a bit to be desired too :)[/quote:483619486a]well, that all depends on whether you are a buddhist, or not now, doesn’t it?! :wink:
The above definition would include such things as forced land purchases[/quote:483619486a]absolutely! The operative word here being ‘forced’
or a business deal where a company is selling to a competitor or other entity while under duress or financial strain. [/quote:483619486a] no, it wouldn’t in my book. After all, that would be undermining the very basis of capitalism, wouldn’t it?
Also, I see a distinct difference between taking something from someone and taking a copy, though i do believe the tradtional concept of theft is outdated as it refers to disposessing a victim, which isnt necessarily true any more.[/quote:483619486a]and therein lies the problem
I wonder if all those who espouse the ‘digital piracy is ok’ have ever had their hard work ripped off… hmmm, interesting one
Dave, this is exactly why pushing for a Shindig on the 1st when the likes of Hannigan or myself won;t be around. Who’ll you have to argue with over your post-Shindig kebab?!!!
-
absolutely! The operative word here being ‘forced’ [/quote:944ae34ab0]
Ah now come on Mr Kelly! It happens all the time that the government obtains land for the purposes of the greater good, and its never been referred to or considered as theft. Sure, people do end up losing out, but thats just the nature of things.I’d be interested to see here who can honestly say they have never used any form of illegal software/media etc. I’d say there arent many – sure even Microsoft have been caught using pirated software in their releases. So how is it that the majority of an (educated) population see an action which is illegal under our current laws as acceptable? Is it because we are collectively morally dubious, or because the law has yet to catch up with modern societal trends?
Or maybe the answer is that we see piracy as a minor sin, not a major one. Piracy is something that we are prepared to be a part of because the benefit outweighs the internal moral objections that we face as people, and that those that (possibly) lose out already make enough as it is.
Hmm.
Dave
-
Playing devil’s advocate a bit, but Dave what is the incentive to spend a lot of time effort and money creating something which people want to use and making it so that anyone can get it for nothing? Surely stopping piracy and giving the creator control over his own work can only be good and will encourage creation?[/quote:871c2b5582]
Going back up the thread a bit, I would have to use the open source movement as a potential answer to what makes people interested in creating things and offering them for free. I’ve thought about the incentives on what drives those kinds of people, and I feel the strongest aspect of it is the sense of personal recognition that people receive from a community that grows from their offerings. It is a natural human instinct to try and impact the world in a way that they feel as significant. People cant stand the subconscious knowledge that when they die everything they stood for becomes dust unless they leave a legacy – be it children, a great empire or a neat little application that other people find useful. So I dont think that stopping piracy will in any way affect creation being encouraged – both sides of the coin are independent of piracy existing.
Dave
-
I dare ya Steph, go on … ;)
-
Ah, well, if I’m being invited to… :wink:
Initially, I believe that an appropriate definition for “theft” in the particular example/field of digital content could read: “unauthorisedly obtaining a copy of the work”.
This ties up with Tony’s definition, which was also quite good, as the concept on which “theft” hinges most is authorisation vs lack thereof, where digital content is concerned, the authorisation being provided (initially) by the author and, through cascading contractual clauses down the delivery pipeline, eventually all the way down to the end-customer, the ‘purchase’ (in the wide sense of the word, as I believe my definition equally covers Open Source which still requires some form of agreement to “authorised access” for use, if only through agreeing to the GPL) act of this end-customer constituting the last link in a chain of “authorisations”…
The apparently conscious decision by consumers to assent (and partake) in software piracy is not surprising in the least. By way of example, cast your mind as far back as 10 years ago, where the average punter was no more educated about Treasure Software and Wonderswan and the joys of 8-bit PC engine or AES playing, but did know to ask whether the second-hand PSX he was buying was ‘chipped’. Not really changed since, has it?
I don’t think that any solution, or even the problem itself, lie in the current Statutes, which are not as out-of-sync with technology as people believe generally think, because they offer the full range of remedy in cases of piracy. “The Law” would certainly allow a developer or publisher to file suit against one or each pirate (yes, everyone, not just the guy with an industrial DVD replicator in his bedroom) and a finding of infringement (of every form of IP in a copied game) would be reached.
But if there’s no money (damages) to be obtained, unless you have vast $$$ resources (like the RIAA/MPAA), the only value to this approach (for the Plaintiff) is “making examples”. Given the results of the poll/research of the OP, I’d hazard that most consumers will therefore adopt the stance that “it’ll never happen to me”. So, wasteful approach in the extreme.
The problem has arisen out of technology and IMHO, the solution(s) lies in technology as well – someone’s just not come up with it yet…
-
absolutely! The operative word here being ‘forced’ [/quote:2180fa6a97]Ah now come on Mr Kelly! It happens all the time that the government obtains land for the purposes of the greater good, and its never been referred to or considered as theft. Sure, people do end up losing out, but thats just the nature of things[/quote:2180fa6a97]agreed, but it’s a matter of degree and of context
So how is it that the majority of an (educated) population see an action which is illegal under our current laws as acceptable?[/quote:2180fa6a97]my turn to say ‘ah, c’mon now’… Who says the ‘majority’ of the population cosnider it acceptable?? Have you asked them personally?!!
Is it because we are collectively morally dubious, or because the law has yet to catch up with modern societal trends?[/quote:2180fa6a97]neither – it’s because it’s easy to do and relatively hard to get caught
-
and seeing as how you like your literary quotations, Dave… (sez he, stirring with both hands)
Private property began the instant somebody had a mind of his own
e. e. cummingsOn the Open Source issue – while I’m a big fan (and you’ve made some very good points in your post on the subject) the sad fact remains that most Open Source software is, quite frankly, crap… or unusable…. or unfinished… whatever way you want to put it – and that makes it an unviable alternative to commercial software
-
Who says the ‘majority’ of the population cosnider it acceptable?? Have you asked them personally?!! [/quote:3bfd13218b]
Wasn’t that exactly what the article I originally posted stated.
Highlights of a study to be released next week, called Fake Nation, were discussed at the summit by researcher Dr Jo Bryce, a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Central Lancashire.
One of the key findings of the study was that consumers consider piracy to be a normal part of life, and that they do not share the view of the industry and the government that it is a criminal activity which is similar to common theft.[/quote:3bfd13218b]
-
my turn to say ‘ah, c’mon now’… Who says the ‘majority’ of the population cosnider it acceptable?? Have you asked them personally?!! [/quote:88e70ff453]
Nope. I’m guessing! But, as a test, ask around – how many people have ever obtained/listened to an mp3 they do not own, or had a copied cd or cassette in their posession? Thats jsut one part of it, and I would hypothesize that it would include the vast majority of people in Ireland.Dave
-
Who says the ‘majority’ of the population cosnider it acceptable?? Have you asked them personally?!! [/quote:eea6032832]
Wasn’t that exactly what the article I originally posted stated[/quote:eea6032832]nothing in the article suggests ‘majority’ or otherwise – simply a vague, undefined mass known as ‘consumers’. These survey results are extraploated from the sample surveyed. The results of the sample taken would always depend on the identity of the people surveyed… besides, as others have alluded to, it’s as much about education as technology (hence the loud, abrasive FACT ads before movies and DVDs these days)
-
You’re just being pedantic now.
Around 2,400 people were questioned via the post and the web for the study between August and September last year. The researchers also held 12 focus groups. [/quote:f047f34a40]
And going from my general perception of the situation, I’d agree. When you’ve got the likes of Napster, Kazaa, Bit Torrent ‘sharing’ digital media, the amount of users is huge. Everyone does it. How many people on this board have never used pirated software, games, music or movies. I’m guessing zero.
-
Oh my gods. I’m agreeing with Omen.
-
You’re just being pedantic now.[/quote:a88ad0a0e7]excuse me?!
I’m just refusing to reduce a hugely complex subject to a childishly simple conclusion just because it suits me. I’m taking exactly the same approach to this subject as I do to the naieve and facile ‘EA bad; starving, struggling indie’ good attitude so prevalent on forums like this one
And going from my general perception of the situation, I’d agree. When you’ve got the likes of Napster, Kazaa, Bit Torrent ‘sharing’ digital media, the amount of users is huge. Everyone does it. How many people on this board have never used pirated software, games, music or movies. I’m guessing zero.[/quote:a88ad0a0e7]which is my whole point! many/all of the technically literate/stereotyical hardcore gamers would have… hardly representative of the majority, though are we?
But if you asked the average ‘man on the street’ – “would you mind if the product of your work for the past two years (remember all those weekends and evenings away from your family and friends spent crunching to get your labout of love out the door?) was shamelessly copied and distributed free of charge to all and sundry without a single cent going to you and your colleagues?” I think you’d find the survey might come up with a different set of results
-
Damn, lets start a thread so we can get back to normal behaviour. Lets call it “Skyclad’s wrong”
-
Well my view on it is this.
People who buy games will buy games.
Those who will Pirate Games will Pirate them.
Even with the ever growing internet, and the general access that most people have to such resources online. Game sales are growing. Certainly within the PC sector anyone who really wanted to could download games, movies and other.
That said people who buy games buy them, and more often than not will opt to purchase the game as opposed to buy it.
Perhpas the easiest way to ensure people purchase game is return to the old Amiga, PC and C64 mentality and add extra value to the game. Either by providing really cool extras in the box etc. (As if it would work, but it may sway a few)
At the end of the day educating the consumer on what piracy is and what they are doing is wrong is not going to matter a fiddlers bit of difference. They are still going to download them, sure a few may feel morally that downloading them is now wrong. But lets be under no illusions, when it comes to downloading a game, or paying $40+ I would say most people who currently pirate will still pirate games.
My advice, target the people who will buy your games, dont enforce some copy protection system that will hinder the paying customers. As the security technology increases over time it seems the paying consumer is the one affected and not the pirate. At the end of the day it took me 3 days to get my legit copy of HL2 to work, while pirates were able to download it within hours of it going retail.
I enjoyed this rant
http://www.virtual-hideout.net/articles/Copy_protection/index.shtmlPersonally I dont think educating the consumer on Pirating will drastically alter their perception on the concept of theft, and what it means and how it applies to digital media.
-
But if you asked the average ‘man on the street’ – “would you mind if the product of your work for the past two years (remember all those weekends and evenings away from your family and friends spent crunching to get your labout of love out the door?) was shamelessly copied and distributed free of charge to all and sundry without a single cent going to you and your colleagues?” I think you’d find the survey might come up with a different set of results[/quote:70814eee94]
And I bet if you asked the same man the same question I asked, I bet he’d said he had used pirated media.I’m not saying its right, I actually do think its very wrong, but in today’s society, there seems to be no reprocusions for doing it and it is extremely wide-spread and deemed okay. How many non-technical people used Napster, quite a few. I can’t imagine many people use bit torrents to download tv shows and think, “nah, this is wrong, I should buy the dvd”. Its acceptable in society and the law doesn’t know how to stop it.
-
which is my whole point! many/all of the technically literate/stereotyical hardcore gamers would have… hardly representative of the majority, though are we?[/quote:1f074c29c3]
The article specifically refers to ‘british consumers’, not stereotypical hardcore gamers. Piracy is far broader than simply copying games, there is a whole world of different pirate activities out there to which every tier of society has been in contact with. So I would think it is fair to say that the majority do, as suggested by the article, deem piracy to be part of the current social makeup and acceptable.Dave
-
BBC take on it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4122624.stm
Dave
Note, might be interesting to define if we are talking primarily about paid for pirated software, or freely downloaded pirated software. I have downloaded pirated software for free, though I’ve next to never actually paid for pirated software – I would tend to buy the real article in that situation. If I’m going to pay for it, I will pay the right people being the argument. -
Yup, I have never paid for anything downloaded, I’d much rather have a receipt and be able to complain if it goes wrong rather than emailing some anonymous person and having him laughing about ripping me off.
Downloading free stuff is the area I was talking about more so.
Also, is downloading free stuff deemed as illegal as paying for pirated media by law? And is the receiver as illegal as the supplier in both cases ?
-
-
Also, is downloading free stuff deemed as illegal as paying for pirated media by law? And is the receiver as illegal as the supplier in both cases ?[/quote:58a2020ec4]
Put simply – Yes. D’ling free stuff is primary copyright infringement, paying for pirated media is secondary infringement. Liability in both cases attaches to both parties, since ignorance is not a defense where IP infringement is concerned.
-
Utv news just covered this and talked about a poll carried out, might be mentioned on their website soon.
-
The results of the sample taken would always depend on the identity of the people surveyed… besides, as others have alluded to, it’s as much about education as technology (hence the loud, abrasive FACT ads before movies and DVDs these days)[/quote:07d8a41852]
I dont think there is anything educational about the copyright ads shown before movies. I don’t think they are helpful, and I’m not even sure they are factually correct.
Maybe I’m wrong here, but don’t we under Irish law have the right to copy certain percentages of a copyright work, for many reasons – for example private study?
That’s how I read
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA28Y2000S50.html
anyway. (Obviously I am not a lawyer – I may well have misread this. Have we got a copyright lawyer handy here?)But assuming the interpation is correct true, then there are scenarios where it would be perfectly legal to record some of a movie in the cinema.
For example, it’s also possible that one might want to take a video or photo of a friend, in the cinema, possibly catching a screen of the movie in the background, or possibly not.
In these cases, it appears you would not be committing a crime, in Ireland?
If this is so, then the scaremongering advertisments before movies are at least misleading, and at worst outright lies.I dont believe wholesale copyright infringment is a good thing.
Neither do I believe that using what are oft percieved as bullying tactics, or providing misinformation to the public, helps anyone.I mean, really, most people have cameras on their phones these days. Which are pieces of recording equipment. Are they committing a crime if they bring this into the cinema, as the ‘fact’ ads would seem to suggest? They are advertising it as if it were a legal fact, threatening us with ejection from the cinema, or prosecution. They even enourage audience members to be vigilent… even for camera phones?
I think the notices are quite ridiculous, in many ways…
I certainly wouldn’t call them educational.
-
I dont think there is anything educational about the copyright ads shown before movies. I don’t think they are helpful, and I’m not even sure they are factually correct.[/quote:00c99e85c1]
To the uninitiated, I believe that at least the message is eductional.
To the initiated, it serves as a notice pre-the presentation.Maybe I’m wrong here, but don’t we under Irish law have the right to copy certain percentages of a copyright work, for many reasons – for example private study?
That’s how I read http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA28Y2000S50.html
anyway. (Obviously I am not a lawyer – I may well have misread this. Have we got a copyright lawyer handy here?)[/quote:00c99e85c1]There are statutory exceptions to copyright infringement, which would not absolve you from infrigement, just lessen the impact of a finding of infringement against you. Generally, it hinges on whether you are infringing for profit or not. In light of MGM v Grokster, even free P2P distribution (wherein you upload the screener but do not charge or ‘trade’ for it) may be construed as a primary infringement.
But assuming the interpation is correct true, then there are scenarios where it would be perfectly legal to record some of a movie in the cinema.[/quote:00c99e85c1]
None. Only ‘accidental’ as you imply further on in:
For example, it’s also possible that one might want to take a video or photo of a friend, in the cinema, possibly catching a screen of the movie in the background, or possibly not. In these cases, it appears you would not be committing a crime, in Ireland?
If this is so, then the scaremongering advertisments before movies are at least misleading, and at worst outright lies.[/quote:00c99e85c1]But even then, a Court might find a case of infringement against you, depending on the ‘substantiality’ of the amount of the work (movie) copied. Which could be an hour or 10 seconds…
By way of example, say we’re talking about Spielberg’s War of the Worlds: he’s been at pains from not releasing a single shot pre- or post-production of what the aliens look like, before Theater Release.
You happen to see a pre-release Work-In-Progress, take a snapshot of an alien in a frame (= 0.04 second at 23 FPS) with your camera phone = primary infringement.
It’s only a 23rd of a second, but there is a strong likelihood that this info will be considered very substantial, given the importance deemed by the author.
I dont believe wholesale copyright infringment is a good thing. Neither do I believe that using what are oft percieved as bullying tactics, or providing misinformation to the public, helps anyone.[/quote:00c99e85c1]
It isn’t misinformation. But let’s put those ads in context: the primer is the (nowadays automatic) release P2P screeners, the purpose is to establish that ‘notice was served’ if & when it goes to court, and the message is simply to make people aware that
(i) they’re not supposed to record the presentation, because doing so constitutes primary infringement, and
(ii) they’re not supposed to download or buy pirated stuff, because doing so constitutes secondary infringement, and
(iii) in both cases, ingorance does not provide any defense anyhow.I mean, really, most people have cameras on their phones these days. Which are pieces of recording equipment. Are they committing a crime if they bring this into the cinema, as the ‘fact’ ads would seem to suggest?[/quote:00c99e85c1]
Not if they don’t record the movie. A simple-enough concept to grasp, even for sub-50 IQs :wink:
They are advertising it as if it were a legal fact, threatening us with ejection from the cinema, or prosecution. They even enourage audience members to be vigilent… even for camera phones?[/quote:00c99e85c1]
And so your point is… :?:
I think the notices are quite ridiculous, in many ways… I certainly wouldn’t call them educational.[/quote:00c99e85c1]
See earlier in this post :)
-
But assuming the interpation is correct true, then there are scenarios where it would be perfectly legal to record some of a movie in the cinema.[/quote:0f307978ab]
None. Only ‘accidental’ as you imply further on in: [/quote:0f307978ab]Interesting to hear a more informed opinion on the subject! You are saying there are never cases where it’s ok to record any of a movie, from a copyright point of view, even for personal study etc, if I understand correctly.
This is very interesting to know, as it’s not what I, and others I’ve spoken to would have thought.
Thanks for the information, which does substantially affect/negate the points I was exploring.There are statutory exceptions to copyright infringement, which would not absolve you from infrigement, just lessen the impact of a finding of infringement against you.[/quote:0f307978ab]
Again, interesting to know. I find the legal text I linked to quite confusing in this case. I know, I have no legal training, so I’m not supposed to be able to read it. Still, I’d like to explore it here, as it was where I got my initial impressions from, and in case I’m misreading something obvious.
So it says firstly that fair dealing would not infringe copyright:
“Fair dealing… …shall not infringe any copyright in the work.”And that fair dealing was using the work in such a way that it wouldn’t hurt the owner of the copyright.
“In this Part, “fair dealing” means the making use of … work … which has already been lawfully made available to the public, for a purpose and to an extent which will not unreasonably prejudice the interests of the owner of the copyright.”I’m over my head here, and I guess what hurts the owner of the copyright is probably well defined elsewhere.
But is taking a shot of the cinema, including the movie, with a camera phone, really prejudicing the interests of the owner? Especially if it’s just for personal use?
The reason I would like to know this, is because if it is legally acceptable to do so, then I would argue that the notices – whatever their real purpose (removing the ability to plead ignorance later etc) – are still misleading.
Again, obviously there’s a lot of legal nuance I’m ignorant of here, as you say that there are no scenarios where it’s legally to record (even incidentally) a portion of the movie.
Oh well, I guess my point would then fall to being that laws are written confusingly for the non-initiated. Nothing new established there, I suppose. :-|
Are they committing a crime if they bring this into the cinema, as the ‘fact’ ads would seem to suggest?[/quote:0f307978ab]
Not if they don’t record the movie. A simple-enough concept to grasp, even for sub-50 IQs Wink[/quote:0f307978ab]
I think we still have another issue regarding the notices there.
It’s very hard to argue definitively about without the text of one of the notices, which I can’t seem to find online (does anyone have a copy?).
But anyway, I recall getting the distinct impression that the notices said that possession of any recording device would be taken as intent to pirate (or something to that effect).
This, at least, would be misleading?Legally, could posession of a recording device (again, using our pathelogical cameraphone example) be taken as intent to infringe copyright?
This is what I recall the notice stating.If that’s the case, then either
A) possesion of a cameraphone cannot be taken as intent to infringe, in which case the notice is broken
or
B) posession of a cameraphone can be taken as intent to infringe, in which case question perhaps need to be asked about the law.So, in summary:
*Thanks for the information, it clears up some misconceptions I had about the law, which meant a lot of my argument was invalid.
*I still find it hard to believe from reading the legalise, that there are no circumstances where you can record small amounts of a movie without infrigning copyright.
*I dont actually know anything about legalese, so thats to be expected.
*On a seperate point, I dont think the ‘any recording device = attempted infringment’ style of the notices, which I think is very dubious. -
I think we still have another issue regarding the notices there.[/quote:49cd347a14]
Agreed, as I had not appreciated that:
I recall getting the distinct impression that the notices said that possession of any recording device would be taken as intent to pirate (or something to that effect).
This, at least, would be misleading? [/quote:49cd347a14]
Not misleading, since it is merely a statement of intent of the ‘powers that be’ (copyright owner, cinema management, etc.) to consider possession recording devices as “intent to pirate”.
It could be expressed as a contractual clause / notice, according to which cinema goers impliedly agree with those ‘powers that be’ that it they’re found with recording device (which is really meant to be digital camcorders, tbh) they’ll get a spanking.
The problem with this ‘notice’, is that:
Legally, could posession of a recording device (again, using our pathelogical cameraphone example) be taken as intent to infringe copyright?[/quote:49cd347a14]
It might be ‘taken’ as intent, but the onus on them to prove it in Court :roll: – and at any rate, possession of ‘recording equipment’ is not proof of copyright infringement. Case in point: every man and his dog has a PC with an Interweb connection, but not every man & his dog downloads piles of CDs from Kazaa!
So, unless (A) they somehow manage to prove that you recorded the movie or bits of it, or (B) have witnesses stating that they saw you do it, they’re going nowhere fast with this ‘intent to pirate’, but letting themselves wide open to a consumer outcry (if you know the right people & (phone) buttons to press :wink: ).
If that’s the case, then either
A) possesion of a cameraphone cannot be taken as intent to infringe, in which case the notice is broken;or
B) posession of a cameraphone can be taken as intent to infringe, in which case question perhaps need to be asked about the law.[/quote:49cd347a14]Not the Law. The cinema management (and/or copyright owners, e.g. RIAA, MPAA) ‘terms and conditions’.
TBH, I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill with this. This ‘notice’ is only really there to give the cinema operators grounds on which to go after someone who comes in with a mini-DV camcorder to create and release a “screener”.
Any incidental use of a cameraphone in a cinema, e.g. to take a picture of a friend in the audience, should be fine. But any (faked) incidental use use of a cameraphone in a cinema, e.g. to take a picture of the movie itself, constitutes primary infrigement and could be acted upon.
Frankly, any use of a cameraphone in a cinema should be acted upon with sanding the culprit to death, preferably slowly under a drip-drip of the finest available sea salt :twisted:
-
TBH, I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill with this. This ‘notice’ is only really there to give the cinema operators grounds on which to go after someone who comes in with a mini-DV camcorder to create and release a “screener”. [/quote:ed79049897]
Yes, you are right, and indeed I am not actually that concerned about it.
I guess I originally just objected to the notices being called ‘educational’ as I really didn’t think thats their raison d’etre…
On another – perhaps related – issue, I find I am recently getting increasingly irritated at the anti-copying notices that seem to be popping up everywhere – from the aforementioned cinema notices, to the warnings on DVDs which stop you skipping past them.
I recently saw a boxed set TV series, which displayed a long running and unskippable copyright notice before each half hour episode.I am wondering if the notices, in their current and increasingly aggressive forms, may actually be doing more harm than good to the sales they are supposed to protect.
But that’s another discussion entirely, and I’m sure someone thought long about it before introducing the warnings.
Anyway, thanks for your time, I’ve learned a lot!
-
-
I’ll just throw this thought out there to the group.
Does ANYONE EVER foresee a time when games (or indeed modelling / animation) software will be hack / copy-proofed?
I mean this thread has been arguing over the pro’s and con’s of pirating Games, which cost somewhere around 40 [Euro] to buy in a shop. But if software giants like Autodesk (whose products are a $1000+) can’t get it right (Max 7.0 still has the same holes in its licensing method) how are games companies expected to do it?
Is it possible that the games programmers within companies just aren’t bothered about locking their EXE’s up tight? That they’d rather see their work (2 years of their life, late nights, weekends) played by as large an audience as possible.
My own opinion is that the programmers aren’t being scrutinised enough, or more outside, independent S.S.-style assessors need to examine the encryption/protection methods before the software/game goes gold.
Walk into any college canteen and you’ll see students playing cards at lunchtime for copies of Office XP and Battlefield 2.
This generation doesn’t seem to hold digital content with any real value.
A CD in the hand is worth nothing in the bush…
What say YE?
-
-
As a general rule of thumb any software can be “cracked”, there’s always a way. The best you can do without hardware or some internet updating incentive (e.g. register to download new updates) is delay the pirate. Given the current business model of making most your sales in the first 6 weeks or so, that’s all that really matters.
-
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.