![[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: 2008-01-15 12:13 am (UTC)Ten is fairly impressive. I've been in conversations about Pascal's Wager in which between us we came up with seven distinct ways in which it was drivel (and I subsequently found a web page listing exactly those seven, so it's possible we actually managed to enumerate the complete set!). I think that's the most I can easily remember for the same thing, though.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 12:29 am (UTC)Actually the conversation I remember wasn't Pascal's Wager[1] but the ontological argument[2], where we had a heated discussion over a dinner party[3] about which was the fundamental flaw in it, and eventually agreed that if all four of us all had our own favourite fundamental flaw in it, it didn't really matter, it was a net of an argument patched together with flaws.
I may be biased, because I've had the ontological argument explained to me in supposed predicate logic by message board cranks, but it always sounds like it was made up by a message board crank. I can't manage to assign *any* meaning to it, let alone one i know whether I agree with or not...
[1] Which I don't agree with, but I think is interesting to think about
[2] Eek. I think it was, now I'm not sure. One or the other.
[3] Tim and Jack, atheist; Pete and Rob, CU :)
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 09:12 am (UTC)- By definition God, if he existed, would be perfect.
- One of the properties of a perfect thing is that it exists.
- Therefore God, if he existed, would necessarily exist.
I think Pascal's Wager is even worse, though.no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 11:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 12:31 am (UTC)But I'm sure we could think of more if we went on...