Slashdot was featuring a story about Australians using BitTorrent for downloading episodes of a US TV series because they are broadcasted much later in Australia than in the US and there is no option for Australians to aquire them legally.
Just because some people can’t get something, doesn’t make it right. I can’t afford a Ferrari, but nobody would justify me stealing it. Similarly, if a movie or show isn’t available in my market, it doesn’t justify piracy because the distributor for one reason or another didn’t make it available. Either wait [f]or it, or petition for it to be made or [sold].
That is an interesting case. When just a car is not an argument anymore, a very expensive car enters the discussion. What makes Anonymous Coward compare mass produced and mass distributed, TV episodes that are easily converted into a digital format with a luxurious product of the car industry? Notice, that it is not just what ever good or whatever car, but the one which is supposed to be the most exclusive. Untouchable, uncopiable and in the future, not allowed for teleportation.
A Ferrari can’t be digitized, copied and distributed in computer networks, not only because it is an analogue object, but because it is against its concept and image. To put a Ferrari into the equation is the desperate and irrational move to break the balance between digital and “analogue” culture in order to end the argument.
In 1990 Mike Godwin noticed: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies suggests that once comparison to Hitler or Nazies is made , the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress. I suggest that a thread on legitimation of copying digital contentis frozen as soon as somebody drives in with a Ferrari.
While looking for a nice animated GIF Ferrari to illustrate this post I came across Meganet contest of 2002 Crack the code and win a brand new Ferrari 360.