The FACT Farce: II
p2p news view / p2pnet: p2pnet reported yesterday about FACT, the UK’s version of a few big toffs sitting on millions and watching loads of people being sued and pushed into a country of fear over “piracy”.
I saw the ad a few weeks ago in Bristol’s Virgin Megastores. Huge 8ft thing hanging in a window. It was one of those times when you wish you had a permanent marker and a camera. Either it would have been an hilarious drawing, or it would involve lots and lots of ****. In fact, probably both.
I think they’ve finally realised that if they do it enough, people who don’t know the truth, who don’t know about computers, online “piracy”, P2P etc. will eventually pick up on it, and believe whatever they want them to believe.
It’s sad, but so very true.
The biggest question, though, really is “Just how far are they willing to go to get the message into our heads?”
Pretty far, if you ask me.
It’s human nature that we remember things of a high profile. 9/11 is a good example. It’s human nature though to remember things, as well, that make us feel sick – maybe a gruesome sight, or something that conjurs up bad thoughts. It’s just the way we are.
So supposedly they changed the message. Maybe made it a bit more terrifying. Perhaps that fiver didn’t go to traffic smugglers. Maybe it went to a terrorism group that’s going to blow up half of the world if we don’t stop paying for them to do it. Mad, completely mad, but they’ll try it. They’ve already blamed internet sharing for terrorism, lost profit (even though they’re making more than ever, despite spending more than ever on yet more half-assed attempts at a decent film) and Anti-Social Behaviour.
Now they’re blaming us for Traffic Smugglers.
Why not just blame us all for MRSA as well while you’re at it? No! Better yet, blame us for the fact your bus to work was 10 minutes late, your car broke down on the motorway, or your bike got a puncture.
Do they think we do it on purpose or something? That we’re deliberately trying to put them out of business? To be fair, if we did, there’d be no problem. Nothing to “pirate”, no money to be won or lost. Easy solution!
Bu No. We do it because we just can’t afford it.
I download for my personal use. I don’t sell it on, I don’t charge people for it, and I sure as hell don’t sell it on the streets on some dodgy stall in a market.
The fact I’ve watched it makes me go out and buy a decent copy of it, or go to the cinema to watch it in maybe slightly better quality. I’ll buy the UMD release for my PSP (soon to be extinct). But I can’t afford everything.
From a 16 year old’s point of view, there’s a lot I want, but so much I can’t have. I give up my Saturdays to earn a bit, put some money away or buy a UMD, spend a bit on the girlfriend.
I’m not losing them any money. I’ll watch it, delete it, and go buy it! I’m making them more. If they really want to stop losing money, stop spending millions putting pointless “phear us!” ads in papers, putting up stupid billboards and posters, and use it to get people who mass produce for a profit off the black markets.
That’s where the money’s going!
FACT is a waste of money unless it’s used wisely. Why do I need to sit through someone scaring the crap through me for a minute comparing me to a thief stealing a car or an old ladies handbag everytime I go to watch Finding Nemo or The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
I’m not against them as such. I agree something needs to be done, but the way they’re going about it is beyond me. I have just one question for all of them..
What are you thinking?!?
Daniel Hudson - p2pnet
[Hudson (huds601 - danhudson89 [at] gmail.com) is a 16-year-old UK Student who’s just finished ‘compulsory education’, and who says he’s, “highly passionate about Bittorrent, PSP’s, and freedom of speech.”]
===================
And Dan wasn’t the only one with thoughts on the FACT farce.
“With media such as music, TV or films, nothing is ‘consumed’, so you can’t really be considered a ‘consumer’ of these things,” posts TurboGeek. “The cartels are still operating with business models that commoditizes their ‘product’ like a bag of chips or a box of laundry detergent, believing their ‘consumers’ will have to go buy more when they run out. The cartels then have a tantrum and file lawsuits when some of their customers have the temerity not to comply with the assumptions of a flawed, obsolete paradigm.”
“Yep,” says another Reader’s Write, “the masters of spin are at it again. Trying their best to distribute FUD to the average Joe on the street.
“These copyguarders have yet to figure out that Joe has about had enough. Because of the lack of balanced reporting in media news it is realized that the whole truth isn’t getting out.
“In the efforts of erecting legal fences, far more than the petty concerns of the affected industries are being affected. Already there are signs of Joe having enough. Around the world, various political organizations are starting to spring up with the common theme of reinspecting the various world wide and national law changes that have taken place in the interests of protectionism.
“More importantly, if it isn’t done, is that a stranglehold is being made on future tech developments. The end results of all the protectionism measures may mean that the locals (where ever in the world that might be seen from) stand a better than usual chance of becoming second best in the technology race to those that ignore it and are unshackled by its restraints. Second best not only means less income for discretionary spending but the likelihood of a poorer overall national income in the terms of GNP. None of these total up to a long term future for the cartels and their associated watchdogs.”
Also See:
reported yesterday – FACT is a farce, July 15, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
July 17th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Dan:
They are not trying to scare YOU or convince YOU. They are trying to convince legislators to see things their way. To permit idiotic schemes which ultimately prevent me from easily delivering to you software I wrote and own.
That last part may not directly be their goal, but it is what will happen if I am unable to set up a computer which can create removeable readable material and send it to you. And, when you look at it technically, how are they going to ‘protect’ themselves otherwise? If I can video myself falling into water and forward it to you for your enjoyment, then I can video a movie and do the same. If I can speak into my computer mike and send you a copy of what I was saying, then I can let my Walkman [Aaaaghh!! Trade mark of Sony, sorry to use, please excuse! Oh, my God, Sony is a trademark, too and I used it, and... Oh! S**t! Now I've done it again. Clearly I'm off to Hell for this cruel and unjust abuse of a Corporation.] do the talking.
The best way to challenge them is to ask your legislative representative to check how much they pay in taxes BEFORE he considers any copy-protection legislation. The odds are the multi-nationals pay close to, well… nothing! Then ask him if legislation is worthwhile to protect non-voting, non-taxpaying imaginary entities.
July 17th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
If they’re not trying to convice me, then what is the point in placing an ad in the paper, or in a shop window. They’re trying to convince consumers, of which I do believe I am one.
This is how I see it from my perspective, as a 16 year old kid growing up in an age of computers and technology, and in an age of file sharing.
This is my view on it. It might not be wholey truthful in regards to facts, but it’s how I’ve seen it and see it right now, and how I’ve made up my mind with what they have done.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:13 am
Daniel, you made the assumption that someone was actually thinking about the issue at hand. That’s not necessarily a good assumption to make when analyzing the actions of the corrupt bureacracy of a corporation, where ruthless, back-stabbing weasels are trying to climb higher up the org chart. Their decisions are based totally on internal politics, and are due to confound an outside observer as completely illogical.
–TG
July 18th, 2006 at 8:36 am
The bug was fixed a few weeks back, which is how I got my account! Big thanks to Jon for getting that sorted!
Oh, and call me huds or Dan
Cheers for the comment though
July 18th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Bureacracies? Corrupt? Whoever mentioned anything about that. Again you’re missing my point of the post, which was to give MY view on situations, so people could see what it’s like for someone a bit younger, to see what I’m feeling about it and what I would like done.
Most people would say we don’t care about copyright and DRM and crap, but we do. We want it, but we don’t want to be restricted by it. We want it because we have to have it, if we didn’t, everything would collapse on itself. there’s be no law involved.
As for politics and anything else you confused me with, I have no idea where you’re coming from, but when I saw that sign on the street, that is what I thought. I didn’t for a second think about Tony Blair with a big light bulb next to his head thinking “OMG! The file sharers are paying for the trafficers! We’re saved!”
You make a good arguement, don’t get me wrong, but you’re argueing a point I didn’t even touch on, nor intend to.
huds601