![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackMany 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.
* 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.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-14 05:56 pm (UTC)I think you have to notice danger signs when very large numbers of people in society are committing the crime, and are receiving what most people would consider completely disproportionate penalties when caught. Consider the people in America being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading a few albums of music, or the notices in the UK before films that indicate a 10 year prison sentence is awaiting anyone who records the film.
People need to be paid for their work, and a society full of freeloaders (or sharers depending on your chosen vocab) is not going to produce very much new content, but penalties need to be proportionate. It's like Judge Dredd where they propose introducing execution for minor crimes. The industry needs to start working with the people rather than criminalising them.
The irony of these warnings (like game copy protection) is that it only serves to annoy the people who legitimately purchase the video. Anyone who downloads it off the internet will get a clean version stripped of such annoyances.
Still, there are more annoying things on DVDs. The Disney DVDs have several (5-10?) minutes of unskippable adverts at the beginning.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-14 06:16 pm (UTC)Some people legitimately buy (or more likely rent) the video/DVD and then rip it either to share or for their own later use - maybe these adds are targeted at them. Personally I think this approach is mad because a)I almost never rewatch films so keeping a copy of things I have rented never really occurred to me (I buy the films/TV shows I want to keep copies of; even if I had initially got illegal copies) and b)if you want an illegal copy you can have one much sooner by going to any of the large illegal-film sites; stuff is often up *before* cinematic release, TV things are caught as first televised in the US... there's really no point in making your own copy.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-14 06:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-14 06:21 pm (UTC)Yes, that's true.
TV is often available in HD (720p or above) online when it's not available in HD at all on DVD/Blu-ray/HD-DVD, or if it is the quality can sometimes be better from the online version (which is a 5-10GB+ MPEG2 stright off the air rip).
The record companies seem to have got the message, all 4 of the record companies now sell DRM free MP3s but the MPAA companies still think they can control things.