This ad probably made more people aware of how easy it is to pirate movies and introduced the idea of doing that than it ever deterred people from pirating. I see the advertisement in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
947 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
69600 readers
3446 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Didn't the commercial use unlicensed music too? I feel like I remember there being a lawsuit for unpaid royalties or something.
Edit: Yup!
Edit 2: I'm an idiot who didn't fully read what I posted.
From what I read that actually wasn't true , at least not for the 'you wouldn't steal a car' (or more officially: 'Piracy. It's a crime.') clip.
Edit: Yup!
Your link claims the exact opposite.
Yeah. I didn't fully read the article lol. Thats on me.
I love our spiderman meme culture where everyone is pointing their fingers at each other accusing them of stealing their idea/song/art/etc.
I can never understand how people carry so much water for corporations who could care less about them. We are supposed to rearrange our entire society around their revenue streams.
yeah. it's mind blowing to me how the Internet was convinced to give up its a culture of piracy and privateering and become sycophants for corporate protection of IP under they imaginary impression that they are "protecting artists".
There were industry executives and think tanks litterally quoted (in the 2000s) for saying that their job was to effectively convince people that piracy "hurt the artist", that this was the way to stop piracy: convince people they were hurting artists by piracy.
Turns out, almost no artists except the most extraordinarily successful make any money off copyright or IP. They mostly make their money the way they've always made their money: ticket sales, merch sales, performances, etc.
Yo, that is my sequence of 0's and 1's is how ridiculous it all is in the digital era. Not to mention I have to pay for and maintain the hardware to even access the content.
I also have a hard time understanding the self imposed artificial scarcity we live with. Copying work/art/ideas/science is literally the point of humanity. We are truly living in a perverse time where corporations steal our culture and spoon feed it back to us for profit and control.
You should watch this from the "don't be evil days" days of google.: https://youtu.be/mhBpI13dxkI
Copyright isn't, and never has been, about "protecting the artist".
It was, and is, and has always been, about controlling the means of distribution.
Interestingly, if you look into the lecturerer of that video, they are very active on mastadon.
The central takeaway is a critical examination of copyright's history and its current relevance in the digital age. The speaker promotes a shift in the conversation towards a model of creativity and distribution decoupled from traditional copyright, emphasizing that copyright was historically designed to protect distribution channels rather than support artists. He argues that the internet's capabilities render those mechanisms obsolete and calls for a new understanding of creativity, free from the constraints of the current copyright system. Ultimately, the speaker urges the audience to question the widely held beliefs about copyright and to support the free flow of information. The youtube video is summarized by transcriptly
Watching it now, I am pretty sure I know most the history but there is always more to learn. Thanks!
Funny, but fonts can't be copyrighted.
They say the ad used XBand Rough, an "illegal clone".
If you redraw an entire font, pixel for pixel, manually, it is not an illegal clone. This happens all the time. The creators of the ad just used a copy that was free.
So ironic, yes, illegal, no.
Typefaces cannot be protected by copyright in the US, but by some stupid interpretation, fonts are software, which is protected. Really annoying how tech-illiterate judges can screw up something this obvious. Even if the technical implementation of a font was something that should be protected IP, it should be under patent law, not copyright.
There's no rational reason typefaces shouldn't enjoy protection.
In general, not interfering is the default position, there needs to be a reason it should enjoy protection.
Need to look at the goals the legislators were pursuing when they wrote the law. If protecting typefaces hinders the production of new books, that goes against the intent of the law. It might not make a difference on that front NOW, but back when typesetting was done by hand, and you needed a whole set of physical type for each typeface, it was a bigger deal.
The point of copyright is to encourage creativity, and there are reasons you might not care about encouraging creativity in typefaces. It's a bit like trying to copyright how you pronounce a word, getting TOO creative here makes it more difficult to convey meaning, and people will do it anyway without the protection of copyright, it's just a natural consequence of how language develops.
Yea, and in this instance, they were using a free font.
Personally I think the artistry in the typeface itself is what should be protected.
pixel for pixel
I don't think it was a bitmap font.
If you copy a font, bitmap or not, you're doing it as a pixel map on a pixelated monitor.
most fonts nowadays are vector based, so they aren’t really created with pixels :)
Vector is still pixel maps. Open an SVG in a text editor 😉
The font of Theseus!
I'm just waiting to be able to download a house.
With VR, you kinda can.
It sucks that today, this message would hit hard with theaters of people cheering and clapping.
You wouldn't download a bear
Fuck you. You don’t know what I’m into!
I'd rather download a bear than download a strange man, that's for sure.
Didn't they already get busted for not licensing the music?
If I could steal a car by downloading it over the internet without depriving the original owner of it and with similarly low risk of getting caught/prosecuted for it I would absolutely steal a car. I wouldn't steal a font tho, that's just beyond the pale. :P
Sligthly off topic but I think this actually may be some kind of Mandela effect, because I think a large number of people actually think the commercial said 'You wouldn't download a car' because of all the memes but it actually said 'You wouldn't steal a car'
I've heard that too, but I saw the original commercials and remember it as 'you wouldn't steal a car'.
Huh, I thought it was called the Mandala effect
I mean, just think about the meaning. "You wouldn't download a car" doesn't make any sense lol
My eighty year-old parents have "borrowed" my car for a year.
I, too, would download one if I could.
And so would they I suppose. It crosses generations!
I haven’t been this shocked since I found out the original McGruff voice actor was arrested with a bunch of guns and weed plants
It looks like I'm using an adblocker you say? Well, I have to agree there!
Short of being able to actually read the article, "free my mans he didn't do nothing." So what he had weed and guns including destructive devices according to the ATF, did he hurt anyone or was he just mega fucking cool? If nobody was harmed and he didn't have a manifesto, the worst crimes he's guilty of are "possessing metal we say no to" and "smoking herbs we say no to," I.E "not shit."
Now, if he did hurt someone or threaten his wife or some shit, then yeah, lock him up and give me his guns and weed for safe keeping.
Wasn't there also a problem with the music rights?
The hypocrisy is unreal. I have been successfully holding onto my final shred of hope in the goodness of humankind, but this tips the scale. I give up. Now I only have despair in the badness of humunkind. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to drown my sorrow by bingeing on Napster, Scour, BitTorrent, newsgroups, and Gnutella.
In fairness, I poisoned one food item in every music executive’s house as punishment for them being thieves.
I forgot about Dre but I was fairly comprehensive.
Did you forget, or you just act like you forgot about Dre?