Air heads

OK, we all know that piracy is a very bad thing. It funds terrorism (*allegedly), cuts into the earning potential of big Hollywood studios, and even prolonged the careers of Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley by three extra movies. 

Many people would argue that piracy is a victimless crime. So you download a hard-to-find album from a fileshare site - it's not like you're hurting anyone. Or is it?

We've all sat through those awful ads that are embedded onto DVDs warning us of the perils of piracy. Some compare it to stealing a car or a handbag. Others suggest that your friends will never speak to you again if you show them a shoddy copy of Die Hard 4 (as though decent picture quality could hope to improve that train-wreck of a movie). 

The record labels have been just as vociferous in clamping down on 'copyright theft'. Swedish torrent tracker Pirate Bay was famously shut down for enabling users to download music illegally. And countless music bloggers found their accounts frozen for sharing their favourite tracks online. 

So I guess it was only a matter of time before other industries followed suit and started pursuing pirates with all the tenacity of Kirstie Alley following a burger van. I'm just not sure they're going about it the right way. 

This time last year, the UK Border Agency seized a shipment of Nike trainers that were being imported from China. The shoes were counterfeit, and so Nike was notified of the case. It was obviously a major concern for the sportswear giant - imagine if the UK was flooded with knock-off shoes bearing their iconic swoosh logo. What if they were actually well made, and involved no child labour or sweatshops in their manufacture? Think of the damage to the brand. 

As a result, the Oregon-based business did what any company would do. They decided to sue the customers who claimed to have bought the shoes in good faith, assuming them to be the authentic article. Although the majority of cases were settled out of court, one unfortunate defendant found himself in front of a judge to argue his case. 

It turns out that E. Bateman's professed ignorance about the shoes' origins fell on deaf ears, as the judge explained: "Whether or not the defendant believed the goods were authentic is irrelevant to the question of trade mark infringement. Whether the goods are infringing goods or counterfeit goods is an objective question. The Defendant's state of mind does not matter. Equally the Defendant's state of mind is irrelavant to the question of importation."

Despite the judge's doubt about "whether the sledge hammer of these proceedings is necessary in order to crack this nut of this magnitude" Nike pushed on with the case and won. Thankfully, Bateman managed to avoid having to pay damages to the multi-billion-dollar brand. Instead, he had to promise never to infringe copyright again. But unless something is actually listed as a knock-off, how can any consumer buy with absolute confidence that Nike won't be knocking on their door with a writ? 

They could have gone after the manufacturers or the online retailer, but instead they chose to go after the customer who just wanted a new pair of trainers. Maybe something to think about next time you're browsing in Footlocker and see a cool new pair of Nikes. Just don't do it...

They work hard for the money

Historically, the porn industry has always been keen to try new things, and I don't just mean docking or DVDA. Streaming content, direct downloads, even 3D movies, have all benefited from those industrious pornographers willing to explore new technology before it hits the mainstream.

Strangely though, there's one aspect of digital technology where the porn industry is lagging behind, and that's in protecting its assets. According to various reports, the proliferation of piracy is really hurting the porn producers' bottom line - which is kind of ironic given how many bottoms they've hurt over the decades.

The Adult Entertainment Trade Association believes that sales are down by about 30 percent, and so they've commandeered some of the industry's brightest/dirtiest stars to encourage fans to pay for their porn. Rather than downloading dodgy copies, they want viewers to put some cash in their wank banks.

The advent of online porn 'tube' sites and file sharing networks has caused revenue to drop faster than a pair of crotchless panties. And that means that sideline businesses, such as make-up artists, set-designers and fluffers, are feeling the squeeze too.

The AETA has shot a new film using a host of big industry names (mostly made-up ones, unless people really do call their kids Sinnamon Love) to encourage viewers to do the right thing. You know, before they start doing the wrong thing.

You may be able to take the girl out of porn, but it seems that it's much more difficult to take the porn out of the girl. The dialogue is littered with innuendo and double meaning, as the performers talk about "making a living selling something", "making it harder for performers" and "activity that could be potentially criminal".

One starlet even remembers to sensuously remove her glasses and shake out her hair, although thankfully the video cuts away before her top gets unbuttoned. And despite the fact that the video has been posted to YouTube, the final performer reminds viewers that "We made it just for you." Of course they did.

As Julie Meadows points out - "We pay taxes and contribute to local economies." She's right. Without the unstinting support and investment of the pornographers, the baby oil, leather harness and plumbing supplies industries would be in a very different position. Reverse cowgirl perhaps?

Big Brother is watching... and Tweeting

Picture the scene. You don't want to shell out for a pricey trip to the movies, but you've got your eye on a film that you really want to see. So you fire up the interweb to see if your can find a BitTorrent site to download it. Unfortunately, the basic search engine function is too complicated, so you go to Twitter instead and post a tweet about the film you're looking for. The next thing you know, you receive a reply begging you to think again... from the studio.

That's what happened to a woman known only as Amanda, who thought her tweet would only reach her group of friends. She was looking for the movie Adventureland, only to receive a message from the film's distributor Miramax. It read "Cmon Amanda, don't do it." Which, let's face it, is about the friendliest anti-piracy warning ever. Amanda, surprised by the warm (if scarily specific) nature of this message, replied "Okay, I won't - just for you." The outcome? Miramax got in touch and offered her a free ticket to see the movie.

I've written about big companies' approach to piracy before, and how clueless they can be. Here's a nice example of one that gets it right. Instead of treating Amanda like a threat to national security, they gave her a friendly warning and then actually rewarded her for her change of heart. But I'm still creeped out by the fact that big companies seem to pay people to sit watching Twitter (and I imagine all the other social networking sites) looking for chatter about potential piracy. So goodbye personal freedoms, and hello to the occasional free movie ticket.