Anti Piracy PSA: "Free movies" want you to know that digital piracy and product counterfeiting are not victimless crimes, to make their point they had a man out in the city streets giving away free movies. With just one catch.....

My prediction: won't be a cult hit like "Don't copy that floppy was. ;)


Adland® is supported by your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi coffee.
Anonymous Adgrunt's picture
Files must be less than 1 MB.
Allowed file types: jpg jpeg gif png wav avi mpeg mpg mov rm flv wmv 3gp mp4 m4v.
AnonymousCoward's picture


AnonymousCoward's picture

Is he making it too literal? I don't think so. There's also distribution to account for. That's truckdrivers jobs.

AnonymousCoward's picture

I'm not so sure. I mean look at NetFlix for example, movie distribution channels are changing from providing physical in-store movies to the online availability of streaming movies. With this method of distribution jobs are lost by cutting out disc makers, warehouses, printers, transportation, etc. and the entire supply chain that was excluded to deliver it online.

Also, which truck drivers are you referring to? Transportation of goods and cargo won't disappear simply because of piracy. That argument suggests that truck drivers rely solely on the delivery of movies. Really? I doubt they'd be losing their jobs over that. The volume of transportation of goods and cargo in all over the world won't stop.

Also, if we did however apply the same argument, it could then be said that disruptive technologies (such as digital photography, digital music, mobile phones, online retailers, supporting local farming, outsourcing, etc.) are also causing people to lose their jobs, but I guess they don't want to talk about that. I find that this video presents a pretty lame argument. And I support the guy who took the CDs. Have no soul? That's absurd. Is that the argument supposed to get people to stop piracy?

It could almost even be argued that piracy is environmentally sustainable and Green! You reduce the carbon emissions by cutting out the transport of these physical goods. All this to say that the current demand for these digital goods have changed and the business models need to adapt to people's preferences, otherwise piracy will continue as is.

AnonymousCoward's picture

Says the douchebag that just wants free stuff

fairuse's picture

Folks, the annoying video is but a small cog in a bigger disinformation campaign. The campaign is an effort to maintain an obsolete business model. The RIAA & MPAA do use every trick you can think of and some you can't imagine.

A few examples:
RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends

NBC News Produces Propaganda Video Highlighting NBC's Views On Domain Seizures "(..) But the really bizarre parts are the quotes from the main ICE investigator, William Ross, on these seizures. It becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that the man has no business running such operations as he doesn't know what he's talking about (..)"

We try to protect the economic interests of US industries and manufacturers. People are taking their work product and selling it for free!
We're protecting them against other people taking their ideas and selling them

Sony's Insane Fear Of 'Piracy' Means Many Movies Now Suck In Digital Theaters"(..) if you try to show a 2D movie via the 3D lenses, you can lose a ton of light. In some cases, the films are being projected 85% darker due to this. (..)" " (..) You might just think the issue is lazy projectionists who don't want to change lenses. While that might play a part... the bigger issue appears to be Sony's insane fear of digital infringement:

So why aren’t theater personnel simply removing the 3-D lenses? The answer is that it takes time, it costs money, and it requires technical know-how above the level of the average multiplex employee. James Bond, a Chicago-based projection guru who serves as technical expert for Roger Ebert's Ebertfest, said issues with the Sonys are more than mechanical. Opening the projector alone involves security clearances and Internet passwords, "and if you don't do it right, the machine will shut down on you.'" The result, in his view, is that often the lens change isn't made and "audiences are getting shortchanged.'"

That is all. This post of highlights has been preempted by Breakfast.

AnonymousCoward's picture

Even if Netflix does away with Truck Drivers, the money you pay to subscribe digitally to copyrighted works goes to pay the people that worked on the copyrighted works, and in the distribution of those works. I don't see why this is such a problem for some people.

Fairuse, what's your take on the copyright fight between the Oatmeal and Funnyjunk? Do creators of original content deserve having their work ripped off?

fairuse's picture

To: AnonymousCoward on 4. June 2011 - 6:48

Only read the headlines on Oatmeal situation. Since you asked this question, "Do creators of original content deserve having their work ripped off?".

ANSWER: You are missing the the point I made. Outright theft of a work is a crime, laws exist to punish those crimes. Don't confuse theft with infringement. The RIAA & MPAA use the "have you stopped beating your wife" argument to convince folks they are the same thing.

1. Example of theft; My crawler sucks up the site adland and puts it up on the internets.

2. Example of infringement; I grab an adland post and drop it word for word, photos and video, into my blog. No notice to the good reader it is adland's work.

At first look one can say both examples are theft. In some law books that is true. In reality the two are very different and have different remedies. In the case of number one it is easy — fair trial and throw em in jail. In example number two there is more than one solution: A. Treat the infringement the same way as number one. B. Contact the blog owner and put it on notice it violated fair dealing (fair use) and it must take the post down. While solution B is the best reaction, solution A is still available for the persistent infringer.

Keep in mind the 'Labels' have no interest in serving anyone but the 'Label'. Serving artists, engaging the public in fair dealing (fair use) and giving the consumer a wonderful experience is not what the agents of the music & movie industry want; its job is to maximize the income to the industry at the expense of content creators & consumers. If the lawmakers where not in pocket of the music & movie industry they [RIAA/MPAA] would be investigated via RICO statues.

Notice I use the word "industry" when referring to actions of agents of music/movie policy. The content, i.e., song and or movie made by an artist is not the music/movie industry. Content producers are a cost of doing business by the companies that distribute music/movies and keeping that cost as small as possible is the industry's goal. Artists of all genre have been, and continue to be, treated like indentured servants of system.

Imagine you wrote some great lyrics, got some talented friends together and cut a demo tape. The Label signs you up and throws money at you while it goes about its mission of selling you. Everyone is happy, yippee. Except you want to setup a *tube page for your fans using a couple of new tunes. Before the the page is a day old the Label sues you for copyright infringement because you have no right to post any of "your" content online. The Label then sues everyone who visited the page for stealing. Now tell me that piece of propaganda you just watched is a factual picture of the music and film content producers.

If you think I am defending people who upload content to the internets for the sole purpose of allowing anyone to get a 'free copy' then you have missed the point; 1) such action is infringement (law breaking). 2) The jobs of individual people are not governed by infringement. 3) Pinning an emotional red herring of that kind, infringement costs jobs, on consumers is disingenuous at best and in general it is treating consumers as potential criminals.

Hope this helps. :-)