GibburtThe Last Man on Earth
Have you ever imagined yourself waking up in a provincial town somewhere in the US, knowing that everyone else in the city is either dead or a vampire and your job is to protect your house with garlic and prepare bolts for killing them, because they keep coming each night and zombie-like hit your blocked windows calling your name?
No?
Me neither. But “The Last Man on Earth” gives an excellent example of what this feeling must be like. It was the first film to adopt the setting of Richard Matheson’s eponymous novel and even featured him as screenwriter. Forget about the latest Hollywood production “I Am Legend” – Will Smith can’t compete with the real legend of Vincent Price and cold computer animated graphics can’t compete with comforting b-movie-esque atmospheres.
You don’t want to spend money on a film made in the 60ies? Alright! Along with hundreds of other films, you can download this one on Public Domain Torrent – legally! However, if you like neat covers and DVDs, get the film on amazon.com
“[..] you can download this [..] legally!”
This suggests that there is such a thing as illegally downloading films. In many countries this does not exist. You may say that there are countries in which it exists (e.g. US, but I’m not even sure how much is, or is not covered by Fair Use and I would be pleased to see the RIAA have to go to the Supreme Court). This is a default problem with the Internet; you can talk about legality, but that word requires a legal context (i.e. country). Since, from what I hear, the distribution of subversive information is illegal in China, there are probably films in what we call the public domain for which downloading them in China is illegal.
There’s no real fundamental point I have here. It is merely a pet peeve of mine. I cringe upon hearing or reading the sequence of the two words “download illegally.” Maybe I’ll blog something on how a lobby group / legal infantry (RIAA, STEMRA, SENA, whatever) with some special interest influences “the common man’s ethics” by simply flooding the media.
Hey Philip,
interesting point. I wasn’t even thinking about it when writing the entry. “Legal” in that context meant “not violating any copyright” to me. Well, I’m looking forward to read your post!
Cheers,
Marcus
“Violating copyright” is indeed illegal. So, legal does explicitly include that you’re also not violating copyright. Mind you, the comment still holds: the suggestion is that downloading material that is not Public Domain *does* violate copyright. The point is that it doesn’t in many countries’ definitions of copyright.
Historically, copyright – like patents – were to protect companies from other companies. One publisher should not be allowed to print another publisher’s earlier publications. To do this, the original author is given “copyright” which she extends to her publisher. The Dutch copyright law from 1912 (held until 2005, I should do some research into the new situation) actually stated that an individual was free to copy content (back in those days: books) for private use, study purposes or distribution within the individual’s ‘domestic circles’ without commercial gain.
This – admittedly – became a bit muddy when, due to Regan and Thatcher, many western countries started defining companies as “legal persons,” suddenly requiring many laws to explicitly between “legal” and “physical” persons. Anyway… more reading is required before I can do a proper post.