Slashdot Mirror
New Internet VCR Service
owillis writes: "Recordtv.com allows you to choose
what TV shows you want it to record, then come back and play them in
realplayer. Legally, they're probably screwed ... but it's cool
regardless." The site isn't very slick, but claims to have 50,000
regular users. Their FAQ also says they have a grand total of eight (8) "VCRS" (video-capturing PCs), so that's the limit on what can be
recorded at one time right now. This seems even more primed for a lawsuit than iCrave
TV.
I have seen a number of posts referring to this service, and other acts of unauthorized copying, as "theft" (of cable service, or material, or whatever) and "piracy." Enough already.
While this service may violate some of the more draconian priveleged copy restriction legislation of the last couple of years, and might even be a violation of traditional priveleged copy restrictions, it is not theft.
Nothing is being stolen. If the commercials are left intact, then even the revinue stream of the original broadcasters and advertisers is enhanced, not diminished. Even if the opposite were true, it would still not be theft. A violation of law which allows for priveleged restrictions on copying information, yes, but not theft by any reasonable definition of the word.
To those who keep using such inaccurate terminology as "piracy" and "cable theft", let me reiterate: this is not theft. Piracy is an act of violent robbery on the high seas, involving armed robbery, rape, and murder. Theft and robbery both involve the taking away of property from someone, either by force or by stealth. Making a copy, legal or otherwise, involves none of these actions! The original is left intact, the original possessor is not denied the product which the various media moguls would have us believe was "pirated" away or "stolen."
What these folks are doing is foolish, yes, particularly in today's witch-hunt atmosphere. Their service is probably a violation of so-called "copyright" (what any society not communicating in newspeak would more accurately term priveleged copy restriction). However, this reflects more so on the appalling state of legislation granting priveleged copy restrictions and the overall state of so-called intellectual property law than it does on the ethics of those offering the service or lauding its existence.
It is bad enough entities such as the MPAA, the RIAA, the SPA, and others use their media muscle to inundate us with their propoganda and rhetoric day in and day out. If there is anything the DeCSS and MP3 struggles have taught us, it is that the least those of us who are a little informed could do is refrain from echoing their refrain, by refusing to use the perjerative terminology these propoganda moguls insist in foisting upon us.
Illegal != Unethical. just ask any black man in America last century, any Jew in 1930's Germany, any Mormon in Missouri prior to 1980, or any Muslim in Serbia today.
Unauthorized Copying != Theft
Unauthorized Copying != Piracy
Unauthorized Copying = Crime (Currently)
Being Jewish = Crime (Germany, 1930s)
Being Mormon = Crime (Missouri, until 1980s)
Finally, for those who miss the obvious:
Law != Truth
Law != Justice
Law != Morality
In short, think for yourselves. And please refrain from echoing official party line rhetoric ("piracy", "theft") until and unless you (a) really mean it and (b) can defend that stance with a well reasoned argument.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I couldn't help but notice the 4 banner adds per page they have on their site. Could it be that it's a vapor service just using the idea for clicks/impressions?
___
Why not? they say there's no such thing as bad PR!
From the FAQ:
9.We currently do not support Pay per view or pay channels (HBO etc.)for legal reasons, only commercial supported channels.
Does this make the service legal? If they are recording shows with Ads, Isn't it the advertiser that is paying for the content to get eyeballs looking at their product? From an advertiser point of view I imagine something like this would be a good thing(tm).
I guess this brings up the question- If you are watching a cable channel that is antenna broadcast, but not in your area, are you paying the cable provider for the content or for the service?
-
air and light and time and space
What would happen if the actual TV companies made a website like this? That way we could still have the service and they could make some cash off of it (though a banner ad or something) and also still have the regular ads shown...
I, for one, would use the service a LOT.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.