"...this is the voice of fate..."

I guess I've been lax. I look at the last time I posted here, and really it's not good enough. I keep on thinking of things to post, but never quite get around to it. If only Google or Apple or one of these TV tech types could do a thing where you think words and they appear on your blog. You'd need some kind of code word to start it off, and another to end it, otherwise every single thought you had would appear on your blog. In a way that might be quite interesting, but I suspect that if every thought a person had were to work its way in to a blog it would make for very odd reading. 

So, I have to stick with typing up this stuff. At least a post a week from now on, I think... 

As it's New Year's Day, tradition dictates I should do a look back at things I liked and disliked in 2013;

As the last post, spoilers are encoded using rot13; got to rot13.com to decipher. They're not just random letters! :)

Likes;

The Walking Dead; both the TV show and the comic. The later of which I read every single issue of this past year, all 118 issues. What I like is that the TV show, although based on the comic, takes the basics of the comics and does its own thing, so that (for example) in the comics during his big attack on the prison The Governor pubcf bss Glerrfr'f urnq; whereas in the tv show it's Urefpury jub fhssref gur fnzr sngr. There were two episodes that really stood out for me, Clear; the episode where Rick, Glenn, and Michonne head off on a mission on their own. It's really just them (plus one other character) for the duration and it's a really powerful episode. 

The other one was the mid-season cliffhanger episode, which was an episode with events in it that many people thought would have been in the season 3 finale. It's one of those episodes that changes the direction of the entire show, and provides closure to one of its most memorable characters. Well, two of the show's most memorable characters. I also loved that the final shot of the episode was exactly the same as the last panel of issue 48.

Like I say, the comics give a flavour to what's coming, and 3 key comic characters are m,aking their debut in the back half of the season. And I'm *really* hoping there'll be an episode called "Fear The Hunters"... I'm also hoping at some point we'll get to see Negan (and Lucille!) in the TV show... but I suspect, as he doesn't make his debut until issue #100, we'll be talking, at the very earliest, a debut for him at the end of season 5 (or even the mid season cliffhanger of season 6)... Question is, will his debut have as much... impact? :)

South Park; a mixed season this year. The goth/emo episode was almost as bad as a towelie episodes, and the Game of Thrones/PS4/XBox trio of episodes was dragged out by at least one episode too many (though the final payoff joke at the end was inspired!). But, this season did have one of it's very finest episodes yet. And it was surprising...

One of the main criteria for a South Park episode is generally how offensive Cartman is during the episode. Or, how offensive the episode is as a whole, leaving you saying "I can't believe they did that!" (see also; Boyle, Frankie.). However, the last episode of the season, called "The Hobbit" had almost no Cartman in it. and had very little in it that could cause offence. There's a girl in the cheerleading squad called Lisa Berger, who lacks elan and style and is thought of as fat and ugly. Through a series of events, a picture of her is Photoshopped to make her look more attractive, and all of a sudden because of this altered image, she is suddenly popular. Then, all the other girls get pictures photoshopped, and they are all popular. Despite their actual appearances being exactly the same as before; only Wendy resists.

The whole theme of the thing is handled so very well indeed; the manipulation of images to create an artificial impression that people cannot live up to. The boys here are shown as very shallow indeed, only liking the girls once they have their altered pictures being more drawn to the pictures than the real girls. Wendy is ostracised for not following the pack. And, I tell you the final scene of the episode is just heartbreaking. When the episode ended I was dumbstruck. I was expecting some final gag, some final thing to lift the mood at the end, but no... quite wonderful indeed. 

And, looking at the clock (I said clock), it's getting late, so I'll do more of this tomorrow.

"...things were different then..."

[Just a quick point of order before I start this post; there are many spoilers contained within this post, but all are encoded in rot13; to decode, copy encoded text and paste at rot13.com. Anything unencoded is spoiler free, but encoded text contains MASSIVE spoilers, so please only read if you've seen the show, or don't mind reading spoilers. And, believe me when I say MASSIVE, I mean it... ]

In Australia, a TV show called Wentworth has just finished airing its first season of 10 episodes. It's a modern remake/re-image/re-whatever of the classic women behind bars show, Prisoner; Cell Block H (although in Australia, and other territories it was just called Prisoner). I guess a quick way of comparing PCBH to Wentworth would be like comparing original Battlestar Galactia with the remake of that. 

Wentworth is certainly a heck of a lot grittier than PCBH; there's f-bombs galore, nudity, sex scenes, and some quite nasty violence. (If I were being a lazy comedy slag, I'd say here "...and that's just the screws!") It essentially takes the original and beefs it up. 

There's a host of characters from the original show also in the remake (I counted 9; of which 5 were screws and 4 were prisoners). Notable changes have been made to many of the characters, though, in several cases very little beyond the name to link them with their original counterparts. I reckon if you showed a clip of most of them to someone who'd seen all 692 PCBH episodes, they'd have a hard job telling you who they were. 

But that's mostly not a bad thing, though, as it gives the new show an identity of its own. Frankie Doyle here remains a lsebian, and is prone to moments of violence (she's vying for the position of top dog with... well, I'll come to her later...); but pretty much every other aspect of her character is new. New Frankie doesn't get to tell Vera Bennett her new nickname, for one thing! 

And Vera... Vera, what have they done to you? New Vera is actually a great character, but I can't help but wish she was a new, original, character as she bears no resemblance to the original. Here, she's a quite shy, nervous, individual who doesn't have anything like the authority of PCBH Vera. It's not that there's anything wrong with her character, but she ain't Vinegar Tits...

The whole show, really, spins around Bea Smith, as the whole thing starts with her arrival inside. One of the main arcs of the show is Bea learning to acclimatise to life inside. This isn't the battle hardened Bea of the original who's top dog, and not afraid to push her weight around. She has a real hard time of it inside, finding the whole experience bewildering. She's our viewpoint character, the one who has all the Basil Exposition stuff explained to her, so that we can understand the rules of the prison. Initially, I had my doubts about her, but as the season drew on and things started to happen to her I really warmed to her. 

But, overall, the feel of PCBH was mostly absent. I say mostly, as there was one notable character that was very PCBH, and somewhat ironically she was the biggest character not based on someone from PCBH. She is Jacs Holt, and she's the top dog. 

Jacs is very much cut from the same cloth as the "baddy" top dogs of PCBH. She's in for murder, and the wife of some big crime boss. She really runs the roost, and if you cross her, you know it. The bitter rivalry between Jacs and Frankie just lit up the screen; especially when Jacs insists on calling her Francesca, which you can tell Frankie hates. Sometimes one gets the upper hand, sometimes the other, and sometimes the violence... strewth.

The show does use some key plot points from the original show, although most of it is original plotlines. One very notable original plot point comes early on, and is clearly done as a massive statement of intent.

Va rcvfbqr bar bs obgu fubjf gurer'f n svtug gung trgf bhg bs unaq naq gheaf va gb n evbg. Va CPOU, Zrt'f uhfonaq vf xvyyrq qhevat gur evbg. Jragjbegu unf n evbg, ohg qbrf vgf bja guvat; nyy gur juvyr guebhtu gur evbg V unq n srryvat gung gurl jbhyq qb fbzrguvat enqvpny, naq V gubhtug... jung jbhyq or gur zbfg enqvpny guvat gb qb? V pbaivaprq zlfrys gurl jrer tbvat gb xvyy Orn Fzvgu. V jnf jebat. Gurl xvyyrq Zrt Wnpxfba. Zrt... yvgrenyyl gur bayl punenpgre va CPOU gb ynfg nyy gur jnl sebz svefg gb ynfg rcvfbqrf bssrq va gur svefg rcvfbqr. Vs rire gurer jnf n jnl gb fnl "jungrire lbh guvax lbh xabj, lbh'er jebat..." gung jnf n grkgobbx rknzcyr bs ubj gb qb vg. 

Gurer'f n pbhcyr bs bgure zbzragf va gurer gung ner fbzrjung fubpxvat, gur rcvfbqr jurer Qroovr Fzvgu qvrf vf whfg fb urnegoernxvat (lbh pbhyqa'g uryc ohg ubcr gurl'q yrg ure yvir), juvpu frgf va zbgvba n frdhrapr bs riragf gung yrnqf gb Orn zheqrevat Wnpf. Guvf vf nyy pyrneyl trggvat gb gur fgntr jurer Orn'f tbvat gb znxr n zbir gb gnxr bire nf gbc qbt qhevat gur frpbaq frnfba.

And a second season has been commissioned. It'll be interesting to see if any other PCBH characters pop up; Lexie Patterson was name checked in one episode, so I was expecting to see her, but she never appeared. 

Most intriguing, though, is the teaser poster for season 2 that's very recently been released showing a close up of a pair of hands; one of which is pulling a black leather glove on to the other...

I've got just one thing to say to the Wentworth people; don't fuck up The Freak. She has to be the most corrupt, bent, screw in the place, and she has to be perfectly cast. 

"...I liked him best in the play..."

The regular reader of this blog will recall a good while back a review of a production of Hamlet with a unique twist, fusing said Shakespeare play with the stylings of The Catcher in the Rye. Well, the director of this production of Hamlet, Gavin Leigh, has been at it again, only this time the twist was Naked Shakespeare...

...actually, it wasn't; but I figure the more I mention that idea, the sooner someone will run with the ball. And in the case of the Shakespeare play produced this time, given that it contained the line "My naked weapon is out" it would have fitted entirely with the play. But, I digress... (what else would you expect?!?)

The production this time was Romeo and Juliet fused with Alice in Wonderland, and the conceit here worked very well indeed. Here we have a Juliet, blooming in to womanhood where she enters this wonder land of love and romance as she meets her White Knight, Romeo. Everything is strange, and new, and it's such a joy to experience it all. Thus, the performance must get over this sense of wonder, and I have to say that Eleanor Massam managed to capture this just so... wonderfully. I really believed in this Juliet, that she was so in awe of the new things she was experiencing, as she drew closer to her Romeo. The scene where they first met was spellbinding, as they exchanged looks, and slowly edged together... I was never anything other than completely entranced by her performance. 

Matt Young's Romeo played off her with just the right note of heroic stoicism. There wasn't as much of a sense of wonder from him, but then there probably shouldn't be (as the notion of Alice is that it's her experiencing the wonder, whereas to all else it's normal). The performances  complemented each other very well. 

And I have to mention the balcony scene, probably the most iconic scene in the play... it was a very brave directorial decision to do the scene, erm, without a balcony, but it worked really well. The pair of them were in each other's arms, sharing a tender moment, and it just felt right. 

However, when it comes to Romeo and Juliet, I'm in agreement with Holden Caulfield...

Mercutio, ah, Mercutio... he was styled as the Mad Hatter, and very appropriate this was indeed. We got here an exuberant performance from Ant Henson, which was so full of life. He strutted his way across the stage, stealing scenes all over the place place when he wasn't the focus, and owning the stage when he was (oh, the Queen Mab speech...). Whether this was intentional or not, I don't know, but I got a real sense of the Ford Prefect (TV version) from his performance; the guy who'd rather go to a party than save the universe... 

So, when he does die it's all the more sad... he was so suave he even put his hat back on head after it fell off... 

I think the one real criticism I'd have of the production is that its aims were possibly a bit over ambitious for the budget available. There was the occasional character who I couldn't work out what the Alice in Wonderland equivalent was, as some outfits were a little generic. But, really, this is small potatoes.

The play was edited down quite a bit, which didn't have any negative impact on the play at all. Shakespeare fiddled with his plays all the time, so there's no reason why a contemporary performance shouldn't follow suit. 

The only time any of the cast are out of Alice garb is at the end of the play, when Romeo buys poison from the apothecary. Here he's in an ordinary suit. We're about to get to the end of the story, wonderland will be left behind, and we plummet closer to the tragic ending. 

There's a whole host of other things I could say; I could list all the cast and say how great they were, but that could get a bit boring (although I have to give a quick nod here to Jack Wilson's performance as the Prince; such great regal nonchalance), and it would be more shopping list than review. I don't recall a singe duff performance. 

I understand that the director's next production will be King Lear fused with the TellyTubbies... the scene where Tinky Winky has his eye gouged out will be a sight to behold. Well, it's either that or Naked Shakespeare...! :)

"...you eat your cutlery instead of your food..."

Now, I'm not the most fashionable of types, but as the weather hots up yet again I see the same sort of things going on whilst walking around town. So, here are some fashion tips that, frankly, if I notice should be blimmin' obvious to all... yet, somehow they are not...

Ladies; if you want to wear a pair of those shorts that are cut in such a way they show of the lower part of your bottom don't pull them down over said bottom every few seconds. After you've taken a couple of steps they'll rise up, and you'll be pulling them down again. I would humbly suggest if you don't want any part of your bottom to show, you should not wear such shorts. Shorts which offer proper bottom coverage are widely available. (See also; short skirts. If you're spending all your time pulling down your skirt; it's too short for you. Wear a longer skirt.)

Gents; sandles with sock are never acceptable. Ever. Wear one or the other, but not both. Even sandals with really horrible toenails are better than sandals with socks. If you are so attached to your socks that you must wear them; wear them with shoes. 

Ladies; if you are wearing those leggings that are so thin they're indistinguishable from tights, be aware that everyone can see your knickers. Everyone. At least make sure said knickers are complementary to the colour of your leggings. Wearing white leggings with (for example) neon pink knickers only goes to alert the world to the fact you're wearing neon pink knickers. Oh, and unless you tuck them in we can also see the labels on your knickers. 

Gents; whilst walking around town, wear a shirt (or at least a vest; you'll look like Bruce Willis, at least!). You may like to show off your six pack, although it's often more a keg, but we really don't need to see it. 

Ladies; if you are wearing clothing with writing on it, expect it to be read. The sole purpose of a  piece of writing is for it to be read; even if said writing is a single word, or a short phrase, printed across your t-shirt. No, chances are we are not looking at your boobies; we're reading the words on your t-shirt that happen to be written across your boobies. If you do not wish people to look at the words on your clothing, don't wear clothing with words on it,. 

Gents; the waist band of your trousers should be positioned in such a manner it is above your buttocks. Wearing your trousers halfway down your arse makes it look like you can't find clothes that can fit you, and makes you look a fool. At the most, a glimpse of the waistband of your pants above your trousers is acceptable; any more is not. 

Ah... now I know how Gok Wan feels...! :)

"...life depends on change, and renewal..."

As we head towards Doctor Who's 50th birthday on November 23rd, the storm clouds are gathering. There was all sorts of talk about how Dr Who would take over television, and how the programme was going to be entering its longest sustained period of production since it came back... but as things stand, the omens are not good. 

As things stand at the moment, there is very little confirmed for the anniversary year in respect of the main event itself, the show;

* - there's the second half of Season 7 of nu-Who, which really should have been on last year (don't forget in 2012, we had just six new Dr Who episodes), so that's 8 episodes.
* - there's a 60 minute anniversary episode. 

And that's all that's been confirmed thus far; albeit that this confirmation has been from promotional material seen at a toy fair, rather than as a result of a direct press release or promotion to the public at large.

The speculation that we'd get a special a month from June seems to have been, sadly, unfounded, as were such specials happening you'd expect mention of it at the toy fair. Also, that the show is on a production break at the moment, with filming due to resume in April would give insufficient time for this to happen anyway. And then there's the news that come May, Matt Smith is off to the US to film a movie...

Whilst it's true that there's no mention of a Christmas special yet, that doesn't mean there's not going to be one. It's been a lynchpin of the Christmas Day schedules since 1985, and I can't see that changing. 

Yes, there's all sorts of spin off stuff, re-issued books, the series of short stories, the Big Finish stuff, but really that's all small potatoes, and a sidebar to what should be the main event; the TV show.

The most substantial of the spin off material, and by far the most interesting is the behind the scenes drama, penned by Mark Gatiss, about the origins of the show, how it came to be, the casting of the leads, and (apparently) going all the way up to the departure of William Hartnell. I am very much looking forward to this... 

...but it does set me thinking... if you've got a cast of actors playing the parts of Hartnell et al, wouldn't it be just perfect to use these actors as the guest cast in an actual Dr Who story playing the roles of the 1st Doc, Susan, Barbara & Ian... wouldn't you just love to see 1st and 11th meet...?

...and if they're going up to the point where Hartnell leaves, does that mean the drama will cast an actor to play his replacement? Will there be a 2nd Doc, Polly and Ben in the drama? And if so, shouldn't they be in the main show as well...? 

It all starts to get intriguing. 

And, returning to the main show, if there is just this one anniversary episode to come, wouldn't that be the perfect time to have a surprise regeneration? If there's nothing else in the can come November (although indeed there might be; no-one knows filming schedules beyond April.) wouldn't the fall of the 11th, ending with a regeneration in to a new Doctor be just the cherry on top of the cake? 

Especially if that actor happens to be Adrian Lester, who would be just perfect as the 12th Doctor.

After all, we should always trust the Moff. He'll get it all right. 

Am I worrying about nothing with my ramblings above? I do hope so...

"...volatile, self-obsessed, and I don't play well with others..."

So, over the last couple of days I've been catching up on the couple of superhero movie films I missed at the cinema... first up I saw the Avengers film, which was mostly really rather good. It was very, very, much a comic on the screen, and captured the flavour of said comic very well indeed. Best thing about it was, by some mile, Robert Downey Jr, who dominated any scene he appeared in. (Which reminds me; must get around to watching Iron Man 2 one of these days...) The whole thing worked really well, both when there were the big action set pieces, and when we had the more character based moments. Also, it had one of the very best Stan Lee cameos... talking of cameos, I loved the Harry Dean Stanton one as well. Overall a big, fun, movie...

And then there was The Amazing Spiderman. I would say it was rather like (warning; lazy comedy slag alert!) The Frustratingly Average Spiderman. Thing is, there were all sorts of elements to it that were great; Andrew Garfield was just perfect. We got Gwen Stacey from the start (one of the most notable annoyances about the Raimi trilogy...), and she was perfect. And Denis Leary was great as her dad, and Rhys Ifans made a wonderful Curt Connors.... but trouble is it all too waaaaaaay too long to get anywhere. For one thing... and thing is the biggest annoyance... we had the blimmin Spidey origin story again. I mean, surely by now every bugger out there knows how he gets his powers by now, and the whole story of how he could have saved his Uncle's life if he'd stopped the robber... yeah, it did things a little differently, but all the main story beats were exactly as normal. Although, was exactly was all that guff with Peter's parents? There was a really good movie trying to get out there, but it was bogged down by loads of guff. The frustrating thing is that it could, and should, have been a truly wonderful film; instead it was somewhat average. 

I have higher hopes for the sequel in that at least now all the origin guff is out of the way (must write a blog post about how superhero films should lay off the origin stories; 9/10 of the time they are not needed), it'll give a bit more space to the baddie of the film. Just one thing, though; if this is to be a trilogy, hold off with the Green Goblin until film #3, and bear in mind Amazing Spiderman #121. (If you don't get what that means, don't look it up; if they use elements of that issue it'll have more impact if you've not read it). 

In anycase, The Dark Knight Rises (one of the few films I did manage to see at a cinema) was better than both of them, despite not even being the best in its trilogy (#2). 

"...a rare gem..."

Back in... ooh... 1991 I think it was I picked up a magazine, and flicked through it. It was a mix of articles, and comic strips. I thought it must have been new, as I'd not remembered seeing it before, but no, it was issue #12. This zine was called "Deadline", and over time its most famous creation, Tank Girl, exploded over in to the mainstream even spawning a movie... but it was never Tank Girl that impressed me most with Deadline. There were a couple of strips that I always liked more, one was Wired World(1). The other... that was Hugo Tate.

The Hugo Tate story in issue 12 was a slice of brilliance. It was a slice of a seemingly ordinary person's life, and of love, and memories, and lost love... and it blew me away. And then there was the style of the art... intricate, and detailed, and beautiful... but hang on; Hugo himself. His head was drawn in a style with not much more detail than an acid house smiley face. But somehow it worked. It drew me in, and meant that I became a regular reader of Deadline. And, as each issue came out, the first thing I'd do would be to check that Hugo was in it. 

Eventually, Deadline ended. There was a collection of the latter, set in America, Hugo Tate stories, but not of the earlier ones. And I never saw a copy in the shops. (This was 1993. Years later when I tried getting a copy on the internet, it was surprising elusive.) There was talk of these being collected, but it never appeared. So, now it's nigh on 20 years later, and I never thought I'd get a copy...

....so, today I was in Waterstones in The Oracle, and was looking at the graphic novels. I had a quick check out of the second volume of Phonogram, and put it back on the shelves; I mean, sooner or later the stuff they missed out from the individual issues is bound to be re-released, either on its own or a new version of the second volume. I can wait. So, I walked around the other side of the stand, and a book with a bright blue spine caught my eye. There were four words on the side. 

"Nick Abadzis" and "Hugo Tate".

I picked it up immediately, and began to flick through it. As I did it sunk in exactly what it was... a new collection of Hugo Tate; not only was the American stuff in it, the earlier stuff was in there too...  I looked at the price... £14.99. My usual reaction in such times kicked in... "I wonder how much cheaper this is on Amazon...?" (2) But, then I thought... "No, sod it; I don't care how much cheaper it is on Amazon, I want this right now..." So I bought it, and I did something I haven't done in such a very long time. I went straight home, there and then, and read the whole thing from cover to cover. 

And the memories came flooding back. With anything like this there's always a fear that the memory of something is stronger, and better, than the reality. I'd not read a Hugo Tate strip in something like a decade. But I didn't need to worry. I enjoyed it as much now as I did when I first read it. The #12 story, "Waiting in Vain", was just as good today as it was that day in 1991. Oh, I'd love to tell you all about this story... but you need to read it with as little foreknowledge as possible. It's a thing of beauty. Just this strip is worth the cover price alone...

Being able to read almost every (I'll return to this soon...) Hugo Tate strip, in order, in one volume just shows how much it developed; the way how Hugo develops, not only as a character, but in terms of the style in which he is drawn, is quite something when you see it as a single work, rather than a chunks over the course of a few years. As the strip progresses the level of detail in his face increases, going from the smiley face style of the early strips, to near fully detailed in the latter ones. 

I recall being disappointed with the latter episodes set in America back when I first read it; the "road movie" elements of it never gelled with me, and I missed the more ordinary settings of the  earlier, London based, episodes. However, I found I enjoyed it much more this time around. Yes, it's certainly true the London stories are, at least to my mind, the better material; but I think looking back there was an element of me disliking the American stuff because I was judging it on what I wanted it to be, rather than what it was. And that was something I did a bit back then; I had a similar reaction to the Twin Peaks movie.

I mentioned earlier that the book contains "almost every" Hugo Tate strip; there's a small number of short strips missing according to a footnote at the back. Apparently Nick A didn't have either the original art, or a copy of the relevant issues of Deadline in which they appeared. The note states that these were "...irrelevant to the main narrative and took place outside its continuity." It's a bit of a shame that a bit of effort wasn't expended to track these down; it wouldn't have been tricky to source copies of Deadline to scan them in... I mean, I've got every issue somewhere, and I really can't be the only one! But, really, this is a minor quibble. 

Also, at the back, there's an appendix with various bits of art; covers, a t-shirt design, and so on. There's also a handful of rough sketches, including a very rough drawing of how Hugo would have progressed had there been further strips. 

Frankly; if you have any interest in the medium  of comics, you need this book in your collection. If it's not, you have a large gaping hole that can only be filled by the purchase of this book. Just go and buy it. Now.

Notes:

1 - If someone can please publish a book with the words "Phillip Bond" and "Wired World" on its spine, I'd be most grateful... I recall the final Wired World being almost as good as the Hugo strip in #12.
2 - Turns out I'd only have saved £2.25 buying from Amazon. 

"...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...