Don't Copy That Floppy! Gets a Sequel 523
theodp writes "Back in 1992, the SIIA released Don't Copy That Floppy!, a goofy video in which anti-piracy rapper MC Double Def DP convinces a young lad not to copy a game by appealing to his sense of right and wrong. Now, to address what it calls 'new generations and new temptations,' the SIIA has uploaded a trailer for a new anti-piracy rap video — Don't Copy That 2 — that will be released this summer. To underscore the video's it's-not-just-a-copy-it's-a-crime message, the new film is a tad darker than the original. A smug teen who's downloading files from 'Pirates Palace' and 'Tune Weasel' finds his world turned upside down when automatic weapons-toting government agents break down the door and take his Mom away in handcuffs. The teen finds himself in a prison jumpsuit forced to tattoo shirtless adult inmates who eventually turn on him, physically attack him, and make him run for his life back to his jail cell (image summarizing his plight)."
British TV (Score:5, Interesting)
Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? (Score:5, Interesting)
A smug teen who's downloading files from 'Pirates Palace' and 'Tune Weasel' finds his world turned upside down when automatic weapons-toting government agents break down the door and take his Mom away in handcuffs. The teen finds himself in a prison jumpsuit forced to tattoo shirtless adult inmates who eventually turn on him
Huh, that's funny. Last I checked you normally don't get jail time for copyright infringement. Search warrants? For your computer maybe. Serving papers for a court date? Sure. Arrested on the spot? Don't think so. Jail time? Not to my knowledge. The only legal consequence the SIIA lists on their site [siia.net] are "significant fines for copyright infringement." Unless the kid was uploading unreleased Guns N' Roses tracks or orchestrating the huge operation of The Pirate Bay I don't think he'll be doing time.
... or realizes that it bothers his constituents that lives are being ruined over something that maybe isn't so serious that a person should be financially hobbled for the rest of their life or next seven years from bankruptcy or whatever results. Huge fines are enough to stop me from copyright violations but lets face it, you're not going to jail if you do it. You're not a hardened criminal with a rap sheet serving time next to murderers if you're convicted of file sharing. You're most likely going to settle out of court and be financially stunted.
Maybe they should do a little more research before they imply that you will end up in a gulag tattooing cartoon characters on convicts?
Don't get me wrong, I'd be fine with the kid (assuming he's 18+) getting a letter in the mail saying he has to appear in court and then a slow five year montage ending with him settling out of court and not being able to go to college or only attending a community college. That'd be pretty realistic. I still don't agree with it but that's how it works these days. Who knows? Maybe the over emphasized results will backfire on them and the general populace will see how unrealistic the charges are for copyright violation? I mean, that's not going to change until a politician looks bad taking a sack of money in campaign contributions
Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, one more Association to add to my shit-list.
Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A better video (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXkxSl4f6vw [youtube.com]
- The Boondocks!
Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... (Score:4, Interesting)
Moreover, the unlawful activities fall under different Acts (or statutes? What do Americans call them?)
For example, murder is against the Criminal Code of Canada.
Speeding is in the Motor Vehicles Act. (And there's a great loophole there, should you care to read through this Act.)
Practicing Engineering without a licence is against the Engineers and Geoscientists Act.
Unauthourized duplication of copyrighted material is against the Copyright Act.
The list can go on and on but I won't bother.
Anyway, all of the aforementioned activities are unlawful, but the difference in enforcement and penalties is extreme. It varies from a $125 file to life without parole. Like you, I've always hated the "if you've ever driven even ONE MILE over the limit, that's the same as SERIAL MURDER. IT IS ILLEGAL!!1!ELEVEN!" argument.
Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... (Score:5, Interesting)
Many, MANY inaccuracies in this video! (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought I would point out the many inaccuracies in this film:
1. The mother was fighting back to the evil paramilitary force that, without warning, smashed down her door and entered her house. She would have been shot because she clearly "endangered" the armed men's life.
2. ANIME ANGEL TATOOS? In an American prison??? I doubt there are any anime nerds in lockup...
The phrase "copycrime" really reminded me of "thoughtcrime" from 1984, which isn't a good message propaganda should be sending...
Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... (Score:5, Interesting)
I bet if I showed this new video to the average 12 year old, they'd think it was some kind of internet sketch comedy thing.
Ah, but what happens when they target it at a younger audience who doesn't know any better?
Throw it into a DARE program (anti-drug education for those outside the US; called VIP in some areas of Canada) targeting 10-year olds who don't yet understand its stupidity, let it sit for a few years. Bingo, a generation of well-trained consumers who think free information is pure evil.
Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you kidding?
Their marketing department didn't even notice that they made an unauthorized reproduction and depiction of a well known anime character in their video...
So I would guess that they don't even understand the meaning of the word irony.
On several levels.
GrpA
Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember going through DARE and how my peers became interested in cannabis and alcohol soon afterwards. DARE had little to no effect on my age group.
Thank God for that. I suspect it does have a lasting effect on more people than you suspect however. Consider that your peer group is not the same as other peer groups, who may be more susceptible to such indoctrination. Geeks tend to be more questioning than most.
Don't get me wrong, I despise the "war on drugs" just as much as the current attempts to move technology back twenty years. I'm just saying that judging by the previous DCTF ad, they're aiming this at kids, and we should have some sort of counter argument ready for those who don't see the flaws of it immediately.
Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not the same situation. A single car can only be used by a single driver at any given time during the day. If you make use of the car for free, you are depriving the owner of the ability to rent that car for a period of time.
On the other hand, if you could wave a magic wand and make an instant copy of the car, your driving of that copy would not deprive the owner of the ability to rent the original in the meantime. It might decrease the value of said rental due to the availability of a free alternative, but it does not, in fact, deprive the owner of any property or any period of time.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Scare tatics (Score:3, Interesting)
>Heroin is dangerous because it's addictive as all hell.
No. Heroin is a threat to a person's freedom because it's addictive. Heroin is DANGEROUS because it is illegal AND it has a low threshold of overdose.
Illegality means that there are no guarantees over purity which means that (ironically) a particularly pure batch of heroin can lead to a user overdosing after taking the same dose as they normally do (same dose but of a purer mix = death). That's dangerous, but wouldn't be happening if the user (however misguided) was able to source a guaranteed level of purity. The government could do this by legalising and regulating. It will not happen so long as the supply is in the hands of criminals. (And this is aside from tha harm caused by the loss of limbs, etc, to injecters of heroin because of the junk that is used to cut it).
The government's continuing war against drugs does nothing to minimise the harm of people who are caught by their addiction to heroin. In point of fact it is RESPONSIBLE for the majority of the harm caused.
Where heroin is able to be supplied legally, under prescription for instance, a user suffers no risk of overdose, unless it's through their own gross stupidity. They suffer no chance of blood-clots and the like through injecting cutting impurities (brick dust, ajax powder etc) and they do not need to inflict their addiction upon society by stealing to fund their habit. The danger to the user and to society is reduced. Enourmously.
In addition the addict can stabilise their life, maintain a job (assuming the assinine policy of drugs tests is not employed by their employer (if they can do their job OK, then it doesn't matter what they're smoking/injecting FFS)) and have a normal family life. In this state they can tackle their addiction and its underlying causes in a state of support and stability. A child gets its father or mother back, a family reclaims their son or daughter.
The addict can even use for the rest of their lives. Although this probably won't be considered ideal (at least in terms of their freedom from addiction) their will be few consequences for their health, since all of the major threats to their physical well-being come from the heroin being in the control of criminals.
Re:Scare tatics (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The new U.S.: Violence is entirely acceptable. (Score:3, Interesting)
There's nothing "new" about it. The US has been corrupt for a long time.
Pay taxes to kill Iraqis? Sure.
40 years ago, it was paying taxes to kill Viet Cong, who were certainly no threat to Americans. At least with Iraq, they had the flimsy excuse that Saddam had WMDs; back then, there was zero threat to Americans from the jungle-dwelling Viet Cong, except some vague threat of Communism spreading, though the real reason for US involvement was to protect French colonial interests.
Pay taxes to kill Iraqis? Sure.
The Federal Reserve has been around for most of the 20th century, so again, nothing new.
The only thing new now is that the corruption has become more visible than ever, and the economic house of cards is breaking down, as the US can no longer rest on the inertia of the post-WWII economic boom.
Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been wondering for about a week whether our society is has gotten more cynical or if I've just been noticing it more. I'm 27, so my adult years have coincided with Oklahoma City, OJ Simpson, Monica Lewinsky, Kosovo, the 2000 election, 9/11, and George W. Bush. Not a fun time for a person who is taking their first looks at the wider world. Since I wasn't that aware of the world before that, I've generally assumed things have always been like this.
Then an odd thing happened last week. This famous singer died. I never really listened to his music as a kid, so, like millions of others, I thought I'd try it out. As I expected, it was good but overrated. But there was one thing I did not expect. It was positive. Shockingly positive. I realized I hadn't heard something so devoid of cynicism in years. Decades.
So I have evidence that society may not always have been like it was today. And now I read this anecdote about kids being more cynical than I was.
I have to know. So older slashdotters, has the last decade been more cynical than the decades before it? Did people really used to believe in things, or is that looking at history with rose-colored glasses?