Here's a question of morality to ponder:
I've just taken out a subscription to Sky Movies in order to watch the Oscars. I'll have to have said subscription for at least 30 days, during which time they'll screen dozens -- maybe hundreds -- of films I'm interested in seeing. If I recorded them to catch later, I'm sure most or all of you would agree that's OK -- what else are video recorders and PVRs and Sky+/V+ boxes for, after all.
Here's where the moral question comes in: I don't have a PVR and my V+ box only has so much free space, so does this make it morally acceptable to download (for free, i.e. illegally) any film that's on Sky Movies while I have my subscription?
Now, as I noted, of course it's illegal -- but, for the sake of argument, that's beside the point. If I had a (big enough) PVR I could record as much as I'd like -- indeed, if I went out and bought one now, I could even actually do that -- so why shouldn't I just get them the other way? Other than depriving a PVR manufacturer of some cash, Sky Movies and the film studios won't be missing out on any money if I download rather than watch on TV.
I'm not looking for a full-proof answer, nor saying anyone who comments is going to change my mind, but I think this is more of a morally grey area than straight-out illegal downloading (even if you do that and have ways of justifying it to yourself, there's no skirting the fact that it's illegal and morally dubious/unjustifiable).
I look forward to your thoughts... if anyone has any...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If it helps, they've started blocking a number of movies from being recorded on to PVR, or indeed anything other than the Sky+ Planner.
Not all (not many, in fact) but I've noticed an increase nonetheless.
Gits. Bring back VHS.
I suppose, theoretically, that makes it more illegal to record/download them; and conversely, makes me want to do it more. "If they're going to be gits about it..." and all that.
Post a Comment