TV Home Forum

Is it really 'THAT' wrong to record from TV (and keep it)

Just tell me what you think of me morally (January 2007)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
dbl posted:
big_fat posted:
dbl posted:
would of been

Would HAVE been. You grammar inept fool. Go back to school.

Excuse me, but I am educated! It's an easy mistake to make. Rolling Eyes


Its a constant mistake made by many of this forum. It clearly shows that some were not actually listening during their education. What a waste of my tax £.

(I'm not being serious - but it is annoying).

Anyway, re this thread: archiving television programmes for your own enjoyment maybe a crime, but its one that millions of people commit.

Don't sweat the small stuff.
TE
tesandco Founding member
Bewitched_Fan_2k posted:

its only since cost effective DVD recording that it seems to have become more 'taboo'


That pretty much hits on the issue I think. It's only more recently all the rights holders have become concerned, not so much about the recording, but rather about the ability to record to a digital format as it makes the potential for copying easier. Whilst VHS suffered generational loss and wasn't wonderful quality in the first place, a recorded DVD can be copied X times, and distributed easily over the internet. It's a similar thing with MP3s really. The only reason they're particularly bothered is because there's the *potential* for it to be easier to copy and distribute beyond personal use. As soon as even the potential is there, everyone using the technology is assumed to be a mass criminal by the major interests.
PO
Pootle5
[quote="rmc"]
Pootle5 posted:
dbl posted:
big_fat posted:
dbl posted:
would of been

Would HAVE been. You grammar inept fool. Go back to school.

Excuse me, but I am educated! It's an easy mistake to make. Rolling Eyes


Just ignore this idiot dbl. Looking at his last dozen or so posts it is clear that big_fat is looking at the wrong website - he / she needs to go and annoy people on a "Use of the English Language" forum instead as there's very few posts actually about TV...

quote]

Well I find it useful when people make such crass errors since it flags up straight away those whose opinions are easily ignored. If they can't get a basic point like that correct who can have respect for their opinion? It really does help sort out those best filed in the waste basket.

Normally if I make a mistake I apologise but then perhaps I come from a different era.

Now, back to the thread. Should we not be more concerned with the original poster's obsession with junk children's cartoons rather than agonising over trivial legal transgressions.? Copyright law can be a total ass, as it is in the case of home recording for personal use.


Do you come from an era where it is acceptable to call people "Grammar inept fools" then? Pathetic. But thank you for reminding me why I usually stick to reading and contributing to just one thread on this Forum. IT IS NOT AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE FORUM and does it really matter if the odd mistake is made here? Adding comments to this or any other forum should not be seen as a bloody English exam, it is a place for people to exchange points of view - not for picking up on minor grammatical mistakes.

I apologise for taking this off-topic but the moderators really ought to clamp down on pedantic troublemakers who get in the way of the debate rather than add to it - I find it more of a distraction than the odd "of" instead of "have"...
JE
Jez Founding member
[quote="Pootle5"]
rmc posted:
Pootle5 posted:
dbl posted:
big_fat posted:
dbl posted:
would of been

Would HAVE been. You grammar inept fool. Go back to school.

Excuse me, but I am educated! It's an easy mistake to make. Rolling Eyes


Just ignore this idiot dbl. Looking at his last dozen or so posts it is clear that big_fat is looking at the wrong website - he / she needs to go and annoy people on a "Use of the English Language" forum instead as there's very few posts actually about TV...

quote]

Well I find it useful when people make such crass errors since it flags up straight away those whose opinions are easily ignored. If they can't get a basic point like that correct who can have respect for their opinion? It really does help sort out those best filed in the waste basket.

Normally if I make a mistake I apologise but then perhaps I come from a different era.

Now, back to the thread. Should we not be more concerned with the original poster's obsession with junk children's cartoons rather than agonising over trivial legal transgressions.? Copyright law can be a total ass, as it is in the case of home recording for personal use.


Do you come from an era where it is acceptable to call people "Grammar inept fools" then? Pathetic. But thank you for reminding me why I usually stick to reading and contributing to just one thread on this Forum. IT IS NOT AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE FORUM and does it really matter if the odd mistake is made here? Adding comments to this or any other forum should not be seen as a bloody English exam, it is a place for people to exchange points of view - not for picking up on minor grammatical mistakes.

I apologise for taking this off-topic but the moderators really ought to clamp down on pedantic troublemakers who get in the way of the debate rather than add to it - I find it more of a distraction than the odd "of" instead of "have"...


I totally agree with you. I am fed up with the amount of posts here with people making comments on other members spelling and grammar. This isnt an English class.
AJ
AJ
Oh joy! The English language debate again!

Must be a regular feature in the TVF calendar now.
NH
Nick Harvey Founding member
AJ posted:
Must be a regular feature in the TVF calendar now.

One could argue, if one wished, that your "in" could be replaced with an "of".

One could then argue, if one wished, that my "with" could be replaced by a "by".

One could then, if one wished to continue, disappear into a loop, of which Bill Gates' programmers would be proud.
:-(
A former member
Nick Harvey posted:
One could then, if one wished to continue, disappear into a loop, of which Bill Gates' programmers would be proud.


"Bill Gates" is singular.

Therefore, "Bill Gates' " should be "Bill Gates's", as per "St James's Park".

Isn't pedantry fantastic?

That one always reminds me of some people's insistence on saying "David and I", even where "David and me" is gramatically correct, such as "Michael went to the park with David and I". Tsk.
OV
Orry Verducci
jason posted:
Therefore, "Bill Gates' " should be "Bill Gates's", as per "St James's Park".

I think Nick was correct. If it was written 'Bill Gates's' it would be pronounced 'Bill Gates-es', which just wouldn't make sense. Also, both the Google Toolbar spellchecker and the one built into Firefox doesn't like 'Gates's' which in my oppinion proves that it should be written as Gates'.
ST
stevek
Pootle5 posted:

............ does it really matter if the odd mistake is made here? Adding comments to this or any other forum should not be seen as a bloody English exam, it is a place for people to exchange points of view - not for picking up on minor grammatical mistakes.

I apologise for taking this off-topic but the moderators really ought to clamp down on pedantic troublemakers who get in the way of the debate rather than add to it - I find it more of a distraction than the odd "of" instead of "have"...


I quite agree pootle, it says in the terms of use not to pick up on grammatical errors in posts. But I see it in lots of internet forums, somebody's got to have a pop at someone else for some grammatical misuse.

back to topic:
technically speaking the tv companies are breaking their own rules by making copies of the programmes for archive purposes because there are numerous copyrights infringements involved with scripts, music, set design etc.

what about film recordings, many people recorded films off the TV before they become readily available on video.
:-(
A former member
Orry Verducci posted:
jason posted:
Therefore, "Bill Gates' " should be "Bill Gates's", as per "St James's Park".

I think Nick was correct. If it was written 'Bill Gates's' it would be pronounced 'Bill Gates-es', which just wouldn't make sense. Also, both the Google Toolbar spellchecker and the one built into Firefox doesn't like 'Gates's' which in my oppinion proves that it should be written as Gates'.


I would always pronounce it "Gateses" TBH. There seems to be some disagreement as to which is correct, but the general consensus seems to be that Gates's is the preferred variant:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184844,00.html

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html

http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=841359

The only time that "Gates'" would be correct, would be if "Gates's" was unpronouncable, ie

http://www.english.udel.edu/wc/handouts/using_apostrophes.html

... and I really don't see how that could be applied here.

[EDIT: AND this last one actually reckons that "9's" is acceptable, something with which I totally disagree. "G's" yes. "9's", nah].
BF
Bewitched_Fan_2k
I like how this thread has totally changed from its original topic now it’s about Grammar and the English language.


*Awaits corrections
JO
Johnny83
jason posted:
Nick Harvey posted:
One could then, if one wished to continue, disappear into a loop, of which Bill Gates' programmers would be proud.


"Bill Gates" is singular.

Therefore, "Bill Gates' " should be "Bill Gates's", as per "St James's Park".

Isn't pedantry fantastic?

That one always reminds me of some people's insistence on saying "David and I", even where "David and me" is gramatically correct, such as "Michael went to the park with David and I". Tsk.


Actually on the roundel's (platform name signs) at the foremention park the majority of signs are spelt ST. JAMES'S PARK, however a couple of them are spelt ST. JAMES' PARK. Obviously somewhere down the line (excuse the pun, not intentional) London underground decided to add the extra "S" to the JAMES' part

Newer posts