Monday, 19 May 2008

Rant over comment attempting to justify criminal behaviour


Argh - I've just seen a comment about the AACS encryption being cracked by someone called "bitchucker" at the following URL:

The comment was "Copying a disc doesn't kill people." - outrageous. That statement can not be made with certainty any more than I can say that someone in Australia will live to 140 years old by the end of the century.

Every action has consequences and just because bitchucker is demonstrating that he/she is too shortsighted to see it doesn't mean it isn't true.

How about this scenario:

A sales target was missed by 1 single sale. Because of that, the sales manager responsible fails to get the budget to allocate bonus to his staff. Just one of the workers in that department was counting on the bonus which had been promised and expected (based on AACS working to ensure sales wouldn't suffer to pirates) to bail them out of their current debt. In order to continue to survive, this worker (or any member of his/her family) gets desperate and finds themselves doing something they shouldn't - taking a chocolate bar from a local store illegally. They get caught on the store CCTV and ultimately end up prosecuted for the offence. Depression sets in and his job suffers. As a result of that, he gets fired and can no longer feed his family. I could go on, including additional crimes, drugs, homelessness, suicide etc.

At any point in that chain of circumstances things could have turned out differently - just because a sales target was missed by 1, one might argue that the bonus was still due, but what number would be sufficient to withhold bonuses - 2, 10, 100, 9998 or 10000? But why not 1?

I cannot see how such a comment is justified, but then I do not understand criminal behaviour either.

And for the record, I have neither an HD or BluRay player and do not work for, or on behalf of anyone either directly or indirectly involved with AACS.

This comment applies to ALL* attempts to justify criminal behaviour in a similar fashion - not just this particular instance.

* - OK, as a colleague has pointed out maybe not ALL, but pretty much most. I'm sticking to that. [Line Added: 27-Nov-2008]

No comments: