Beware! Personal copies of games and movies are illegal

@Kosmic, I'm 28, and that is a horrible picture :(

But your right, it is hard to reconcile the fact that once you purchase something, you should in fairness be able to use it on any device you like. If you look at the licencing agreements for some online music for example, it would be considered pirating for converting it's format. Which is totally insane.

My condolences :D I hate pics of myself on the net and try avoid them where possible. On topic, I think the laws should rather be updated for modern media and climes, also the punishment seems ludicrous when compared to similar "priced" crimes ( breaking and entering etc. ) Cost of the item is certainly fair but the other figures and jail time seem to indicate a legal system that is out of touch with the people it's supposed to protect.
 
So what are they saying that we didn't know already?

The tl;dr version:
- Downloading is fine, but the copyright owner may claim damages and have you pay the original price of the item. Good luck spending a few thousand R to track one person down, only to have them pay R250 for the rip of the bluray that they downloaded.
- Uploading is the same as distributing, and is therefore an offence.
- You're not allowed to make a copy of media that you own. This is an ancient law that has been around since the days of the VCR, but it's never stopped anyone before.
 
Ah MyBB. The place filled with people that have the attitude of "If they won't let me buy it, I'll just take it. How cool am I!"

It's not really an issue of coolness, just practicality. I no longer own anything with an optical drive, and the local outlets don't even bother to stock half the stuff I want anyway. It seems really silly to have to go to a shop to buy a song etched on to a piece of plastic, when I could download it in under minute (happily for a fee if I was allowed to pay for it). I'd love to have a Netflix subscription or legitimately buy music on iTunes but I can't because, apparently, the local agencies for the media content companies have some sort of ongoing difficulty in allowing this, while it seems pretty straightforward for the rest of the planet.
 
But your right, it is hard to reconcile the fact that once you purchase something, you should in fairness be able to use it on any device you like. If you look at the licencing agreements for some online music for example, it would be considered pirating for converting it's format. Which is totally insane.

Nick, are you aware of any efforts to revise our antiquated copyright laws? They don't seem to have kept up with the times/technology.
 
If you are not redistributing ( at robots, via torrents ) they can sue you only for the value of what you have copyright-infringed. Taking you to court to recover the price of a R100 DVD is a bit pointless. This skaap Hall needs to show us how many private individuals they have taken to court for ( non-redistributing, non-criminal ) copyright infringement in SA. I bet the answer is zero. So let him go bonk his granny.
 
So what are they saying that we didn't know already?

The tl;dr version:
- Downloading is fine, but the copyright owner may claim damages and have you pay the original price of the item. Good luck spending a few thousand R to track one person down, only to have them pay R250 for the rip of the bluray that they downloaded.
- Uploading is the same as distributing, and is therefore an offence.
- You're not allowed to make a copy of media that you own. This is an ancient law that has been around since the days of the VCR, but it's never stopped anyone before.

You would only have to pay the price of the media you downloaded. But you forget that you would also have to pay the fees for both parties lawyers.
 
It's not really an issue of coolness, just practicality. I no longer own anything with an optical drive, and the local outlets don't even bother to stock half the stuff I want anyway. It seems really silly to have to go to a shop to buy a song etched on to a piece of plastic, when I could download it in under minute (happily for a fee if I was allowed to pay for it). I'd love to have a Netflix subscription or legitimately buy music on iTunes but I can't because, apparently, the local agencies for the media content companies have some sort of ongoing difficulty in allowing this, while it seems pretty straightforward for the rest of the planet.

There will always be some reason people don't want to pay. It is too expensive. It isn't in the format I want. It isn't in the quality I want. It isn't in the timeframe I want. Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

People will just use whatever justification they desire to justify in their own minds taking that which they are not allowed to.
But that isn't really the bad part. It is the self righteousness they have when they do it that is sickening
 
iiiiit's miiiiiine,my precious...to do the f**k I want to do with it,so stuff off SAFACT!!
 
What is a copy, BTW? Is the law as precise (or fuzzy it seems) on copying, vs ripping vs transcoding?

(1) I have box sets DVD's that I have made ISO's onto my hard drive. They are eating a lot of space and I want to convert them to small size MKV (2). I did not bother further attempts after Handbrake left a 1GB file/episode. (3) I just downloaded some 100MB files that I was satisfied with, but I was not able to find the rest. (4) The other option is to make a disc to disc copy which the article addresses as not legal although not criminal.

I know where the law stands when (5) buying from a counterfeit seller. But for points 1-2-3 the law is fuzzy, or am I not understanding. Surely a mp3 or mkv is not a copy?
 
Dunno about movies, but you definitely are allowed to make backups of PC Games. It's your property once you buy it, you can actually do with it what you want.

Surely series/movies are the same?
 
You would only have to pay the price of the media you downloaded. But you forget that you would also have to pay the fees for both parties lawyers.

It's difficult to prove what is being downloaded though (let's exclude torrents for the purposes of the point). They're not allowed to snoop on a user's internet traffic, and if they have reasonable suspicion that a user is downloading their product (which would require snooping), then they would need to take it up with the authorities. It's a circular argument of sorts, one which is very difficult to pull off in court. My point being that the copyright owner themselves would only see a R250 benefit in this whole process, if they can provide a solid argument, but they won't see a cent of the lawyer's fees.
 
What is a copy, BTW? Is the law as precise (or fuzzy it seems) on copying, vs ripping vs transcoding?

(1) I have box sets DVD's that I have made ISO's onto my hard drive. They are eating a lot of space and I want to convert them to small size MKV (2). I did not bother further attempts after Handbrake left a 1GB file/episode. (3) I just downloaded some 100MB files that I was satisfied with, but I was not able to find the rest. (4) The other option is to make a disc to disc copy which the article addresses as not legal although not criminal.

I know where the law stands when (5) buying from a counterfeit seller. But for points 1-2-3 the law is fuzzy, or am I not understanding. Surely a mp3 or mkv is not a copy?

To a normal layman, this sounds perfectly legal. If you bought it already, the creators are not losing any money in you downloading the smaller sized torrents.
 
I wouldn't mind buying movies and series if they weren't so ridiculously overpriced in SA. And those are things you only watch once and put away. When I was in Holland I could buy a series of Friends for <R100 which I don't mind, but R300 here is too much.

For games, I don't mind paying that much because I know they will give me more entertainment than a few hours of video on a DVD.
 
There will always be some reason people don't want to pay. It is too expensive. It isn't in the format I want. It isn't in the quality I want. It isn't in the timeframe I want. Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
People will just use whatever justification they desire to justify in their own minds taking that which they are not allowed to.
But that isn't really the bad part. It is the self righteousness they have when they do it that is sickening

How do you know what is going through their minds?
 
@Kosmic I agree, the law doesn't suit the digital environment at all, and we are in need of a revamp. The thing is it's not just the law that needs an update. One has to remember that the Copyright Act only sets up the default position, the other thing that needs an update is the licencing of the media itself. Personally if owners of works updated their licences properly then this wouldn't really be an issue. To a degree this is what the Creative Commons People are doing, and shows you a good idea of how "powerful" a licence agreement can be.

@ponder the law has been "revamped" a couple of times (most recently in 2002). But as far as I know there are no major drives to do a full overhaul, which is what is proberly needed. In fairness this sort of process is only starting to happen in much more "advanced" legal systems (like Europe) only now. I know the UK is also has started looking at copyright reform.

@Rwenzori To my knowledge none. We have had some criminal cases (but those were against people who where selling pirated copies in flea markets and such). Just for disclosure, neither I nor my firm represent SAFACT.
 
I have compulsive generosity disorder. I share things, whether those things belong to me or not. I steal things, just to share them. I am CRAZY.

You think you can stop me HAH? Try btich! Did I not just say I'm crazy? HAAAAH?
 
Dunno about movies, but you definitely are allowed to make backups of PC Games. It's your property once you buy it, you can actually do with it what you want.

Surely series/movies are the same?

The article is a bit misleading, most EULA's for games allow the user to make a copy, and the EULA changes the default position (essentially the EULA is the copyright owners way of giving you permission to make backups).

With series and movies though, there is no licence agreement that you as the "viewer" enter into with the copyright holder. So the default position stands, no backups allowed. Again, as many have pointed out it is highly unlikely that the copyright owners will ever sue you for it if you did it though.
 
Back
Top