Egan, Permutation CIty (read this one, it's saying something I don't fully understand yet)

I reread Permutation City recently. I think it's probably an injustice to say it made more sense this time, but knowing what was going to happen let me follow a few of the events more easily, and consider the main idea better.

Can this be a spoiler? I've joked before about things like the Titanic sinking not being a spoiler for any story, as it's intendedly part of the background. However, if a story is based on a philosophical/mathematical fact/observation, that fact has to be true beforehand as well -- you might plead ignorance that no-one had told you that the titanic famously sunk, but the fact that, eg. travelling round the world, resetting your watch at each timezone, gains you an hour, is an inescapable consequence of how astronomy and calenders work.

However, I'm only teasing. Obviously most such facts can be true but not obvious, and it's a spoiler that they're important *here* whether you knew of them or not. And many are *not* obvious even if true. And some might be literally true, but only seem relevant with the appropriate emotional impact.

Thus, the rest of this post contains no spoilers for the plot as such, but rather for the underlying idea. In this case, I do think you benefit a bit from discovering what's going on as you go along, but if you don't mind, never mind.

( Spoilers )

"You wouldn't steal a DVD" (Spoilers for blood-pressure raising, morally dubious, anti-copying ads)

Many DVDs I see start with an anti-illegal-copying message, which always annoys me each time I see it. As a reminder that illegal copying is (even perhaps prevalent amongst your friends) not just automatically normal, it's reasonable, but it annoys me because:

* It's boring seeing it come up every time

* It's annoying that *I* see it, because I feel (rightly or wrongly) that I don't need it, and feel someone is patronising me by telling me obvious things

* And by using such "dramatic" imagery, it suggests copyright infringement is as bad as Really Serious Physically Immediately Harmful Crime (TM) that adverts against often employ, and it feels like it's trying to tell me I don't have to moral maturity to make those judgements

* It feels like it's saying any more complex analysis of the situation (of which we've seen plenty on these pages) is stupid

* The examples it uses -- stealing a car, a purse are disingenuous. Notice that stealing a car gives the thief much less benefit than the nominal value of the car, and harms the victim much more than the nominal value, what with shock, finding another car, increased premiums, etc. And the same for a purse. But copying someone's DVD harms the DVD's original owner not at all by the act itself [there's certainly indirect harm].[1]

* Choosing that comparison grates on me. It's like having an advert saying "I know you just rented this DVD, but instead of enjoying it, now spend an hour contemplating whether these two acts of theft are morally equivalent"

* The argument, "it's theft" I charitably suppose to mean "and theft is only used to describe wrong things", which as seen above is questionable enough. But it always sounds like "this is wrong because it's against the law". Which is a reasonable guide to action -- drink driving ads have a very effective one-two punch, saying "If you drive drunk, you'll kill someone. And go to jail." But this is definitely admitting you won't get caught, just saying that it's wrong, because it's theft.

I can just imagine a helpful copyright representative barging into the last supper saying he'd heard Jesus had plans to circumvent a legal execution by coming back to life and spreading peace and happiness to all peoples of the world, but sorry, that was wrong, because that's not what the law said.

OK, I think that's everything. When I'm well I promise I'll make less obvious, though not less comedic, rants.

And now for something, actually relevant

[1] That's actually an interesting comparison. There *are* physical-world examples where theft has effectively no immediate impact, but does cut into someone's rightful profit. For instance, if a corner shop makes and sells sweets, and the cost of making the sweets is completely negligible compared to the shop.

Then stealing the sweets is definitely wrong. However, children doing so might be seen more as naughty than bad. Of course, in this case, the costs involved are quite small, so the shopkeeper might well not be losing very much, and not inclined to prosecute.

I can think of other examples, though none particularly apposite or on a comparable scale. I'm not sure if any actually cast any useful light, but it's an interesting perspective.

Signs (spoilers)

( Spoilers )