"...you are a pirate..."

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days since the closure of Megaupload, and the Wikipedia (et al) blackout protesting at the forthcoming Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Now, it's clearly obvious that those who create a work of art (of any type) should have the protection of that work to ensure that they receive the remuneration they deserve for it, and to ensure it is not used for purposes they deem inappropriate.

However, there are flaws at the heart of the any estimate of revenue lost to piracy. The figures quoted always seem to be based on the premise that every download of a copyrighted piece of work constitutes a lost sale. This is, of course, rubbish. To state that every person who downloads something without paying for it would have bought that work has they not downloaded it is clearly a massive overstatement. I do not deny that there will be lost sales there, but actually gauging the percentage of these downloads that would probably have cost a sale is quite probably impossible.

Anyhow. I'm starting to digress here from the main point I was really going to be making with this blog post, and that's to do with the question of the ethics of downloading from non-legitimate corners of the internet; when is it okay to do so, and when is it not okay to do so?

Now, I know there will certainly be some reading this who will say it's never ethically okay to download something from a non-legitimate site, and I respect that opinion. It is not an opinion I agree with, and here are some examples as to why not;

You will never be able to convince me that a person should not download a copy of an off-air recording of a TV show. If there's a TV show someone wants to see, and it's available as an off-air recording, then they're downloading it. This is no different to borrowing a VHS or DVDR recording from a friend. If it's the latest episodes of a US TV show not yet aired... well, again it's no different to a friend over there taping it and mailing it. It's all the same thing, just via a quicker, more efficient, method. In no way can the copyright holders be said to be losing out here. If something's broadcast on the television, it's going to be recorded, kept, and copied. It's inevitable.

You will note in the above I specifically refer to "off-air"; this is to differentiate between this and a copy of a commercially released DVD. The downloading of a commercially released DVD can never be justified; if you can't find an off-air of a show, and only a dodgy DVD copy you should go out and buy the DVD... No question. Ditto any material exclusive to the DVD release; you should buy the thing.

Mind you, sometimes the off-air version of a show is superior to the version released on DVD; music substitutions sometimes blight a release with inappropriate music used in place of the originally aired songs. (In extreme cases, it can lead to whole scenes - sometimes important ones - being excised from the DVD.) The wrong music may seem a minor, trivial, issue; but it can have a massive impact on the scene. A notable example being the replacement of the song Georgia On My Mind with some generic plinky-plonking in the episode of Quantum Leap called MIA on the US DVD release; it completely ruined the impact of the scene, which is one of the most tender, sad, moments in the show. Fortunately, the UK version had the correct song intact.

And music... Music is a veritable minefield, but there are certainly examples that can be cited. Most notable is when you're a dedicated fan of a particular band. You'll want everything they release, and you'll buy it all. But there will come a time when there will be things unreleased. Those obscure radio sessions. Bootlegs of gigs. Interviews. Live TV performances. Now, being the dedicated fan that you are, if such goodies were released you'd buy them in a shot. But they're not... so, really... realistically if you find a website with those rare, unreleased, not repeated for 20-odd years, Peel Sessions (for example) are you really going to say "ooh, no; mustn't download these, must respect copyright..." Nah... of course not. You'll be downloading them in a shot. As a dedicated fan you just must have copies.

I would also say it's possible to mount a defence for downloading an album to see if you like it. The outcome here is obvious; if you decide you like the album, you buy a copy. If you don't like it, you delete it. I would suggest this is defensible purely on the basis that this is not really any different from borrowing a copy from a friend. Of course, if you decide you like it and don't buy a proper copy, keeping the dodgy one, you're clearly in the wrong. Obviously, opinions will vary here...

The trouble is, copyright is so often seen as a black and white issue, with no shades of grey in the middle. This is unfortunate, as it's clearly not an issue that can be polarised like this. Yes, there will be those people who never pay for any of the media they consume, and this is clearly wrong. But I do put it to you that there are examples - some of which are outlined above - where although copyright is breached there is no financial loss to the copyright holder, and these should not be bracketed with those breaches of copyright where the intent is to deprive the copyright owner of the remuneration they are due.

One final thought; there are currently 106 episodes of Dr Who missing from the archive. There are vast numbers of episodes of other TV shows missing, too. Loads of early Peel Session. Virtually everything the Beatles ever did for Top of the Pops.... I could go on... Just think... if the means and methods we have today for "breaching copyright" were available back then, the gaps in these archives would have been so much smaller...

"...I hear you call my name..."

I am getting increasingly annoyed at US TV shows getting the axe, and ending on a whopping cliffhanger. This year it happened to both V and The Event, last year FlashForward and to a lesser extent, Heroes.

[Incidentally; spoilers for said shows follow.]

American TV has always been ready to chop shows with little mercy, and in the days when each show was always a self contained story, this was much less of an issue. However, now many shows have epic, overarching storylines, and when a show like this gets the axe, it mostly never gets an ending to the story. Instead we are left dangling.

V ended with Anna giving her Bliss to the world, a trio of key deaths, another character in peril, and the introduction of a whole new aspect to the show in the shape of Project Aries. Its axing meant that Marc Singer's character, instead of being the important person he was destined to be is now a mere footnote to proceedings; little more than a fan-pleasing cameo.

The Event ended with the plan to unleash the virus thwarted, the array rather than just brining Sophia's people to Earth bringing the entire frickin' planet; and even with that brief last exchange between the president's wife and her son; "What is it mommy?", "Home" just made you ache for more.

FlashForward ended just as we actually got to the point of the first flash forward, with tantalising hints of the end of the world in a few years time.

And Heroes... although the main points of the season had been wrapped up - the carnival storyline, there was that tantalising moment at the end where Claire announces the existence of those with powers to the world...

You see, the trouble is that by the time a show gets word it's getting the axe, it's too late to give a conclusion. Both V and Heroes had already aired when they got the axe, with the other two getting the chop after filming had finished with just a couple of episodes to screen. This meant there was no way that any of the shows could have an ending. They just had to put up with what they had already got in the can. Moments intended as cliffhangers had to serve as cliffhangers.

In the case of all of these, they were pretty much gamechanging moments; however, in the end, they're now only gamechangers in the same way that Eric Cartman picking up his ball and hissing "Screw you guys, I'm going home" is to the kids' ball game.

I really can't help but wish that they'd all got the word of the axing earlier; that way last episodes could have been changed so that they were able to fashion an ending, even if a rushed one. That's not an unreasonable demand, is it?

I remember Quantum Leap ending; that last ever episode was just meant to be an end of season episode. But, with a small amount of overdubbing, and a couple of captions (which still manage to make me wonderfully happy, and depressingly sad at the same time) the show got an ending. But, that was an episodic, rather than a serial, show, and thus much easier to tweak at the last moment.

Lost spoilt us, I think; from the end of Season 3 we knew that there would definitely be just three more, shorter, seasons and then it would be The End. That meant they had the space to give the show the ending they wanted, and they wouldn't have to to either stretch out or unduly compress the ending.

And it really makes you wary of investing time in a new show, as you'll have it in the back of your mind that there'll be a chance that it won't last beyond 24-ish episodes, and be unresolved. Of next year's crop I'm looking forward to Alcatraz (with Jorge Garcia; there's a trailer already. It's great), and Person of Interest (with Michael Emerson). But part of me thinks I should wait until the end of the season to see if they get picked up at least for a second season. I just don't want the disappointment should one or the other get the axe with a whopping cliffhanger.

Of course, there is one inherent irony here; my favourite show remains Twin Peaks. A show that got axed after 30 episodes. And ends on a whopper of a cliffhanger. And they knew they were getting the axe in time to give the show an ending. But Lynch and Frost chose to end on that cliffhanger.