4 ms·

A classic example of organizations (BSA, Microsoft etc.) not understanding the internet and thinking this was going to deter others. Lots of online comment (an

A classic example of organizations (BSA, Microsoft etc.) not understanding the internet and thinking this was going to deter others. Lots of online comment (and views of the video[1]) are supportive of the guy and are viewing to remove the threat of him being financially ruined (it's almost at the 200,000 as I type). MS just come across as intentional bullies and thugs (I'm paraphrasing comments made elsewhere rather than stating an opinion) and that's probably way more damaging to them than any of their make believe financial damages ever could be. The BSA have a long track record of trying to game search engines and cause reputational damage to those they sue but I expect, in the long run, the 'pirate' will have more harm caused by long forgotten facebook postings than by the BSA. The world has moved on and the BSA have failed to even notice they've been left behind. I'm tucking this one away as an example for the times I need to give examples of brain-dead stupid stuff that people who don't understand the internet, do, thinking they're being super clever and showing their super skills/exacting revenge etc. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKjPutIlBCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKjPutIlBCA [edit:spelling]

markbao 11y ago
Yep. This is the weirdest variation of the Streisand effect I've ever seen.
- felipeerias 11y ago
  It was intentional: "In order for the firms' promise not to sue to be valid, they said, the video would have to be viewed at least 200,000 times within two months of its publication this week. A spokesman for the BSA told the BBC that the stipulation was to ensure that Jakub would help share it as widely as possible."
qznc 11y ago
Agreed. This action nearly forces the audience to sympathize with the poor man who is under attack from Big Co. They advertise themselves as the bad guys.
anon4 11y ago
The thing is, the general public will never see sharing of media as a criminal act. The only difference to a normal person between lending a book and letting someone copy a movie is that you both can watch it at the same time. To most copyright is just some made-up bullshit for the purpose of squeezing money from honest people.
- zanny 11y ago
  So everyone who defends copyright always uses the example of the small artist stopping a giant company from just using their work and calling it their own, because thats the only real substantial of damage in an IP liberated world that does not happen now (copyright is not effective in granting the rights holder a guaranteed distribution monopoly anymore). Are IP holders getting revenue from large businesses paying them to use their IP, or are said businesses just having their legal teams verify that their clone is just right on the cusp of infringing so they can still reuse others work without credit but instead through exploit loopholes in the system they built? Because we know very well that the largest utilization of copyright law today is to suppress the development of competitive products to existing media brands and content providers, especially online where the DMCA is an absolute policy of presumed guilt. I want to know where these perceived benefits even are, because they keep the discourse about how to fix copyright unproductive when half the people are defending it for... some reason?
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  Most people are pretty dumb so what most people think isn't relevant. Example: Donald Trump's popularity.
  - Spivak 11y ago
    This point is idiotic. If the people who don't think that media sharing is a crime actually organized it would cease to be a crime. Law is written by a privileged few but is enacted by the everyday people who choose whether to obey and enforce it based on their conscience and incentives.
    - 11y ago
stevewillows 11y ago
This will have just as much of an impact against piracy as the classic piracy warning from the IT Crowd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU It's great to see it hitting nearly 400k views. I hope they hold up their end of the bargain.
- __david__ 11y ago
  That looks like a legit one. Did you mean this one? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck
  - stevewillows 11y ago
    ha! yes. The IT Crowd one is so good I was fooled. Good catch!

markbao 11y ago

Yep. This is the weirdest variation of the Streisand effect I've ever seen.

felipeerias 11y ago
It was intentional: "In order for the firms' promise not to sue to be valid, they said, the video would have to be viewed at least 200,000 times within two months of its publication this week. A spokesman for the BSA told the BBC that the stipulation was to ensure that Jakub would help share it as widely as possible."

qznc 11y ago

Agreed. This action nearly forces the audience to sympathize with the poor man who is under attack from Big Co. They advertise themselves as the bad guys.

anon4 11y ago

The thing is, the general public will never see sharing of media as a criminal act. The only difference to a normal person between lending a book and letting someone copy a movie is that you both can watch it at the same time. To most copyright is just some made-up bullshit for the purpose of squeezing money from honest people.

zanny 11y ago
So everyone who defends copyright always uses the example of the small artist stopping a giant company from just using their work and calling it their own, because thats the only real substantial of damage in an IP liberated world that does not happen now (copyright is not effective in granting the rights holder a guaranteed distribution monopoly anymore). Are IP holders getting revenue from large businesses paying them to use their IP, or are said businesses just having their legal teams verify that their clone is just right on the cusp of infringing so they can still reuse others work without credit but instead through exploit loopholes in the system they built? Because we know very well that the largest utilization of copyright law today is to suppress the development of competitive products to existing media brands and content providers, especially online where the DMCA is an absolute policy of presumed guilt. I want to know where these perceived benefits even are, because they keep the discourse about how to fix copyright unproductive when half the people are defending it for... some reason?
forrestthewoods 11y ago
Most people are pretty dumb so what most people think isn't relevant. Example: Donald Trump's popularity.
- Spivak 11y ago
  This point is idiotic. If the people who don't think that media sharing is a crime actually organized it would cease to be a crime. Law is written by a privileged few but is enacted by the everyday people who choose whether to obey and enforce it based on their conscience and incentives.
  - 11y ago

stevewillows 11y ago

This will have just as much of an impact against piracy as the classic piracy warning from the IT Crowd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU It's great to see it hitting nearly 400k views. I hope they hold up their end of the bargain.

__david__ 11y ago
That looks like a legit one. Did you mean this one? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck
- stevewillows 11y ago
  ha! yes. The IT Crowd one is so good I was fooled. Good catch!