A 60 minute cassette usually had ten or more games on them. You went and bought that amount of originals rightaway in one go? I wish i had that kind of money to move around with as a kid, or now for that matter.
Mine were C15s. It took me a bit longer to find Harrier Attack, but I got it! :)
Exactly, When my mates popped round after school, all the games had the proper boxes and stuff!
ah, so its okay for multiple people to share one copy....
what exactly is the moral difference (and for you, copyright seems to be a moral issue); between x people using 1 copy of something (instead of buying x copies); or 1 person making x copies?
You load the game up, your mate goes home, he loads it up; two copies running. Or would you be so precious to ensure that you switched the game off when he left?
You have shared the product, and the author has been paid once.
ah, so its okay for multiple people to share one copy....
what exactly is the moral difference (and for you, copyright seems to be a moral issue); between x people using 1 copy of something (instead of buying x copies); or 1 person making x copies?
You load the game up, your mate goes home, he loads it up; two copies running. Or would you be so precious to ensure that you switched the game off when he left?
You have shared the product, and the author has been paid once.
You sit round the telly, and the family watch Doctor Who. That's what it's intended for. One game, on one computer, being played by many. Some games are two players. You've never noticed that?
You sit round the telly, and the family watch Doctor Who. That's what it's intended for. One game, on one computer, being played by many. Some games are two players. You've never noticed that?
swerve
which did not answer the question
one programme - two machines owned by different people, two locations. Big companies frown upon that now; they limit installations, or you need a multi-user license (which often limits the number of copies of the programme that can runnning at any one time)
(bbc programmes would have been a public broadcast, into private homes, with the owner of the TV paying a private-viewing fee. Different kettle of fish altogether. Check out your copright notices on your dvds and cds about broadcasting to the public)
one programme - two machines owned by different people, two locations. Big companies frown upon that now; they limit installations, or you need a multi-user license (which often limits the number of copies of the programme that can runnning at any one time)
Er. exactly? :roll:
There's no reason two people can't sit down and play that one running copy of a two player game is there. That's the point of it.
Exactly, most kids got a game for their birthday, and maybe 1 or 2 for christmas; and that was that.
I'd have played about 10 spectrum games if they were all legit copies. For a lot of kids, the only games they ever played were copies.
Countless musicians got into music via bootlegs and pirates, and listening to pirate radio. That was and IS where the real music scene is. Its not on CDs and endlessly re-issued vinyl that the major labels pump out. I don't know of a music fan that doesn't have plenty of bootlegs and pirates, and hold them more precious than official releases. Such things are shibboleth to music lovers. Before the internet one would go to Camden on a Sunday morning to get the tapes of the gigs from the week before (true story - I bumped into Bowie at a stall in Camden after his gig at the Town and Country Club in 1989, he was buying a recording of his own gig).
Dimadozen is one of the best sites on the net. It provides music fans a product that official record companies have NO interest in putting out. The quality now is fantastic, recordings are being cleaned up, mixed, balanced; by fans who know what the product should be. And then there are the basement tapes and demos that fans get hold off, and release. Thats what it is all about.
I myself use Dimeadozen and have been a member for over 10 years, the reason it works and survives is because every recording is unofficial, officially unreleased and every artist has no objection to their recordings appearing on the site. Every recording is free available and the site members all insist that no money changes hands for the recordings. If an artist wants their recordings removed from Dime then just one email from the artist or his management will have every recording removed, no questions asked. Dime have a strict policy to ensure they are not shut down by artists disgruntled by their music being spread against their wishes.
Recording artists have been actually known to discretely release gig recordings on the site and some actually encourage it. It's a great way for them get their music to the people and a wider audience, allow them to be discovered and encourages the general public to buy the official releases.
I've discovered more than a dozen artists I would have never heard of and bought their albums just by downloading one gig.
Without knowing the copyright laws intimately I suspect to the letter of the law, the recordings are not completely legal but the love of the music, care in which it is spread and respect in which the artist is treated overcomes the legalities.
If I loaded up my copy (for example) of jetpac on your spectrum; then went home and loaded it my spectrum; its running on two machines. What's the difference between installing one programme on multiple machines, and copying the programme?
frankly, I don't believe anybody's holier than thou attitude to copyright. There is too much good stuff out there, that is only available due to the efforts of pirates, bootleggers, market-stallers, the black market etc.
graz will next be saying he was whiter than white and didn't pass round vhs pr0n tapes at school (now seriously, who pays for pr0n???)
If an artist wants their recordings removed from Dime then just one email from the artist or his management will have every recording removed, no questions asked. Dime have a strict policy to ensure they are not shut down by artists disgruntled by their music being spread against their wishes.
Recording artists have been actually known to discretely release gig recordings on the site and some actually encourage it. It's a great way for them get their music to the people and a wider audience, allow them to be discovered and encourages the general public to buy the official releases.
I've discovered more than a dozen artists I would have never heard of and bought their albums just by downloading one gig.
Without knowing the copyright laws intimately I suspect to the letter of the law, the recordings are not completely legal but the love of the music, care in which it is spread and respect in which the artist is treated overcomes the legalities.
If I loaded up my copy (for example) of jetpac on your spectrum; then went home and loaded it my spectrum; its running on two machines. What's the difference between installing one programme on multiple machines, and copying the programme?
frankly, I don't believe anybody's holier than thou attitude to copyright.
That's your prerogative so long as you keep it to yourself, or move to a country where you can insinuate people have broken the law with no evidence. :razz:
I myself.... respect in which the artist is treated overcomes the legalities.
quite,
(and lets face it, if the recording was taken down of Dime, it would be somewhere else)
which is exactly the point I was making in regard to the music industry in general. Pirates, bootlegs, live recording etc. enrich the music community; and are often sanctioned by the artist; so as to get music out there that the label would have no interest in releasing.
I've lost count of the number of recordings that have eventually seen official release (often after decades) and are worse than the bootleg.
And of course, there are the pirates that will never see the official light of day; that are often leaked by the artist themselves.
The point you make about the artist getting the product out there to encourage official sales is a very valid. Those that visit record shops and stalls that sell pirate music are music fans; they have the official stuff. I've got several thousand legit cds and lps. I'm not out there stealing - I've paid more into the coffers of EMI and RCA than most!
The back market is enriching the scene, not depleting it. What music fan doesn't have a hatload of these:
No, virtually all the files on WoS have been sold commercially whilst the recordings on Dimeadozen are live recordings, recorded by fans and have never been commercially available.
(and lets face it, if the recording was taken down of Dime, it would be somewhere else)
which is exactly the point I was making in regard to the music industry in general. Pirates, bootlegs, live recording etc. enrich the music community; and are often sanctioned by the artist; so as to get music out there that the label would have no interest in releasing.
I've lost count of the number of recordings that have eventually seen official release (often after decades) and are worse than the bootleg.
And of course, there are the pirates that will never see the official light of day; that are often leaked by the artist themselves.
The point you make about the artist getting the product out there to encourage official sales is a very valid. Those that visit record shops and stalls that sell pirate music are music fans; they have the official stuff. I've got several thousand legit cds and lps. I'm not out there stealing - I've paid more into the coffers of EMI and RCA than most!
The back market is enriching the scene, not depleting it. What music fan doesn't have a hatload of these:
The key point to make is that the music is freely available and the bootlegger (i.e. the guys who make the recordings) make no money from it, they just want to get the music out there. Some of the greatest gigs in history are only available as bootlegs.
Last point, no-one should EVER pay for a bootleg, I never have.
That's your prerogative so long as you keep it to yourself, or move to a country where you can insinuate people have broken the law with no evidence. :razz:
what, you reckon there is at least one boy that got through his school years without watching pirated vhs pr0n tapes??
If that IS true, maybe I can understand the attitude towards taping video games....(seriously, those tapes were not bought for the lovely packaging)
Last point, no-one should EVER pay for a bootleg, I never have.
I have, many times, before the advent of the internet.
I have a pile of CDs, and vinyl. It would often be of gigs I went to; or famous shows; or recordings that were just not available. They are invariably much better quality that commercial releases.
Now, I don't, I download them; unless it is a very special issue.
If I loaded up my copy (for example) of jetpac on your spectrum; then went home and loaded it my spectrum; its running on two machines. What's the difference between installing one programme on multiple machines, and copying the programme?
There's a difference between buying a game on tape in the 80s with copyright law and buying an installation disc with terms, conditions and rights usage.
Using the tapes in the 80s there was nothing against the law in having one tape for 2 machines. You just couldn't make unauthorised copies of it, rent it or sell it.
Don't confuse two completely different laws for the same thing.
In this case your argument is invalid.
Oh, no. Every time you turn up something monumental and terrible happens.
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
Don't confuse two completely different laws for the same thing.
I'm not the one that is confused.
We have a previous argument that it was NOT okay to take a copy of somebody's game and use that copy (because, presumably, the copyright holder was losing out on a sale). But that it was okay to share the original tape amongst other users.
Now, I don't really care about the legalities. I ignore copyright as I choose to.
The point is, you have somebody that is concerned with an author losing out because their product is being shared. How it is shared should not then matter, if the point is a moral one (and it is the moral argument that is made again and again, not a legal one. The law is an ass)
If a kid takes a game to school, and shares it around, and all the kids play it; then the author has sold one copy. Copyright has failed the author; so there is no real distinction between sharing one copy and distributing copies. Either way, the author is not getting paid for people using his product; which is the point of copyright law.
If a kid takes a game to school, and shares it around, and all the kids play it; then the author has sold one copy. Copyright has failed the author; so there is no real distinction between sharing one copy and distributing copies. Either way, the author is not getting paid for people using his product; which is the point of copyright law.
The very real distinction is that one is copying a copyrighted work and the other is not. :p
Comments
Mine were C15s. It took me a bit longer to find Harrier Attack, but I got it! :)
Exactly, When my mates popped round after school, all the games had the proper boxes and stuff!
ah, so its okay for multiple people to share one copy....
what exactly is the moral difference (and for you, copyright seems to be a moral issue); between x people using 1 copy of something (instead of buying x copies); or 1 person making x copies?
You load the game up, your mate goes home, he loads it up; two copies running. Or would you be so precious to ensure that you switched the game off when he left?
You have shared the product, and the author has been paid once.
You sit round the telly, and the family watch Doctor Who. That's what it's intended for. One game, on one computer, being played by many. Some games are two players. You've never noticed that?
swerve
which did not answer the question
one programme - two machines owned by different people, two locations. Big companies frown upon that now; they limit installations, or you need a multi-user license (which often limits the number of copies of the programme that can runnning at any one time)
(bbc programmes would have been a public broadcast, into private homes, with the owner of the TV paying a private-viewing fee. Different kettle of fish altogether. Check out your copright notices on your dvds and cds about broadcasting to the public)
Seriously, don't get into this. Contrary to popular belief I ban very few people from WoS, don't be one of them.
Er. exactly? :roll:
There's no reason two people can't sit down and play that one running copy of a two player game is there. That's the point of it.
Recording artists have been actually known to discretely release gig recordings on the site and some actually encourage it. It's a great way for them get their music to the people and a wider audience, allow them to be discovered and encourages the general public to buy the official releases.
I've discovered more than a dozen artists I would have never heard of and bought their albums just by downloading one gig.
Without knowing the copyright laws intimately I suspect to the letter of the law, the recordings are not completely legal but the love of the music, care in which it is spread and respect in which the artist is treated overcomes the legalities.
that is not what I asked
If I loaded up my copy (for example) of jetpac on your spectrum; then went home and loaded it my spectrum; its running on two machines. What's the difference between installing one programme on multiple machines, and copying the programme?
frankly, I don't believe anybody's holier than thou attitude to copyright. There is too much good stuff out there, that is only available due to the efforts of pirates, bootleggers, market-stallers, the black market etc.
graz will next be saying he was whiter than white and didn't pass round vhs pr0n tapes at school (now seriously, who pays for pr0n???)
It's basically operating the same as WoS then. :)
Nothing?
That's your prerogative so long as you keep it to yourself, or move to a country where you can insinuate people have broken the law with no evidence. :razz:
quite,
(and lets face it, if the recording was taken down of Dime, it would be somewhere else)
which is exactly the point I was making in regard to the music industry in general. Pirates, bootlegs, live recording etc. enrich the music community; and are often sanctioned by the artist; so as to get music out there that the label would have no interest in releasing.
I've lost count of the number of recordings that have eventually seen official release (often after decades) and are worse than the bootleg.
And of course, there are the pirates that will never see the official light of day; that are often leaked by the artist themselves.
The point you make about the artist getting the product out there to encourage official sales is a very valid. Those that visit record shops and stalls that sell pirate music are music fans; they have the official stuff. I've got several thousand legit cds and lps. I'm not out there stealing - I've paid more into the coffers of EMI and RCA than most!
The back market is enriching the scene, not depleting it. What music fan doesn't have a hatload of these:
http://www.stereogum.com/830851/uncuts-50-greatest-bootlegs/list/
"the bootleggers who preserve our musical heritage should be regarded as cultural heroes, not as criminals. "
yup
winner winner chicken dinner
Last point, no-one should EVER pay for a bootleg, I never have.
Well that certainly explains what point you were attempting to make doesn't it... :roll:
what, you reckon there is at least one boy that got through his school years without watching pirated vhs pr0n tapes??
If that IS true, maybe I can understand the attitude towards taping video games....(seriously, those tapes were not bought for the lovely packaging)
I didn't...
I have, many times, before the advent of the internet.
I have a pile of CDs, and vinyl. It would often be of gigs I went to; or famous shows; or recordings that were just not available. They are invariably much better quality that commercial releases.
Now, I don't, I download them; unless it is a very special issue.
that explains all
Might have been cheaper to just pay for porn in the long run. :lol:
Using the tapes in the 80s there was nothing against the law in having one tape for 2 machines. You just couldn't make unauthorised copies of it, rent it or sell it.
Don't confuse two completely different laws for the same thing.
In this case your argument is invalid.
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
https://www.youtube.com/user/VincentTSFP
where did you go to school
when I was 13, the girls at school didn't look like pr0n stars
Why??
I'm not the one that is confused.
We have a previous argument that it was NOT okay to take a copy of somebody's game and use that copy (because, presumably, the copyright holder was losing out on a sale). But that it was okay to share the original tape amongst other users.
Now, I don't really care about the legalities. I ignore copyright as I choose to.
The point is, you have somebody that is concerned with an author losing out because their product is being shared. How it is shared should not then matter, if the point is a moral one (and it is the moral argument that is made again and again, not a legal one. The law is an ass)
If a kid takes a game to school, and shares it around, and all the kids play it; then the author has sold one copy. Copyright has failed the author; so there is no real distinction between sharing one copy and distributing copies. Either way, the author is not getting paid for people using his product; which is the point of copyright law.
where you a prefect?
The very real distinction is that one is copying a copyrighted work and the other is not. :p
were you one of the Bash Street kids?