Aral Balkan: Historical Archive — F.A.C.T. Off! Let's give F.A.C.T. the finger.

F.A.C.T. Off! Let's give F.A.C.T. the finger.

I just saw this on Adriana's blog and had to reproduce it here. I love that poster.

Piracy: Giving the movie industry the finger?

There’s nothing I hate more than sitting down for a film at a cinema only to have that horrendous F.A.C.T. screen come up to threaten me about what could happen to me if I take a photograph or record the film. Thank you for threatening me right after I’ve bought a ticket and sat down to watch a film and RE-FUCKIN’-LAX for goodness’ sake!

If you read my blog, you probably know that I don’t like being threatened. In fact, you may say that I’m somewhat allergic to it. That’s why I’ve developed somewhat of a chronic rash against the MPAA, RIAA, and recently, the BBC

In fact, here’s an idea: Let’s organize a single day where we all go to the same movie and take a photo (with flash, of course) of the F.A.C.T screen at the start of the movie and post it as a protest on Flickr? Why not organize this as a national event with meet-ups at cinemas all over the country? We can call it Finger F.A.C.T. day. Or F.A.C.T. off! I like F.A.C.T. off! In fact, I just registered factoff.org. Let’s do it!

Who’s with me?

Comments

I'm with you. Although I find the ad telling us how bad the quality of illegal pirate DVDs are quite amusing. I must be finding much better downloads than those guys then. ;)
by Mark Norman Francis on 2007-03-09 16:45:16
I'm up for it! I'll record a video clip of their stupid ad and stick it on youtube, all small and grainy. It would be funnier if someone got a HD DVD rip of it though :)
by Thom Shannon on 2007-03-09 16:45:41
I'm with you there! Speaking of bad quality copies ... it remind me of a funny moment though! When I was in Art school a colleague who was from Russia brought an illegal Russian copy of The Matrix and guess what? All the dialogs were over-dubbed (with original voices still under it) in russian and all by THE SAME PERSON! I mean ... ROTFL! This alone was so hilarious that I couldn't help but laughing my ass off!
by sascha/hdrs on 2007-03-09 17:50:19
All this threatening stuff. Your being warned about someting man. RE-FUCKIN’-LAX!
by Tink on 2007-03-09 18:13:11
Is that Grant Skinner in the poster?
by Tink on 2007-03-09 18:15:02
Aral, you know I haven't paid for content in years. Piracy? Why that's for the birds. I share :)
by Arman on 2007-03-09 18:21:46
there, out in the darkness, a fugitive running (you know the words :))
by Arman on 2007-03-09 18:23:15
I agree completely! You've paid for the DVD... you've paid for the DVD Player... but yet it costs two minutes of your life every time you use them! You wouldn't steal a TV? You wouldn't steal a movie? But you would steal my time on this Earth! My solution to the problem is VLC...
by Tom on 2007-03-09 21:56:05
Why do you still go to movie theatres, to be programmed by bigmoney studios...? (I still don't understand why people listen to Britney Spears, much less copy her.)
by John Dowdell on 2007-03-09 22:34:58
jeeze Aral you really need to pull that broom stick out your arse !!, Sorry buddy but you need to relax a little - take a chill pill - what is it with you at the moment ! First the whole TV license thing and now your having a dig a FACT. FACT do a hugely important job in fighting the perpetrators of IP and copyright theft crimes, and these ads are a necessary evil. There are people out there - many of them on this blog apparently that seem to think that its ok to download or purchase DVD's from unofficial sources. The plain fact is IT'S ILLEGAL. Ok so you know that ... but amazingly enough there are people out there who dont know this. Its is these people that the ads are aimed at. Come on it's only a couple of minutes and hardly worth loosing any sleep over. Just ignore it for f**ks sake ... concentrate on your bag of pop-corn or something if t bothers you that much. It really isn't that bigger deal. How different is it realy from the speed signs by the side of the motorway - we all KNOW what the limit is... but people need reminding from time to time As for the person that made the poster moaning about loosing a couple of minutes each time they watch a DVD.... well all I can say is i feel sorry for them. Think of all those hours wasted in photoshop making the damn thing !! The poster on Adrians blog makes a good point ! Its pretty lame moaning bout having your time wasted having to watch a 90 second message, yet you'll waste time making something as pointless as the image above. As for your suggestion to flash mob a cinema as a F.A.C.T-off event ... go on i dare you. Not only will I laugh loudly at you as your thrown out (think 10 quid wasted for the price of your ticket) probably prosecuted and fined - but also you'll be doing a great job of offering them a perfect PR opportunity. ... Ok actually dont really dare you but whilst I disagree with your views on this I don't really want to see you end up in trouble on it. I'm not completely sure your serious about it - even though you have actually registered the domain - but 'd urge you o consider it VERY carefully. Sure I'm a paid up member of FACT - I happen to think what the work they do is tremendous - so maybe I'm not completely objective on this but I had to put my point
by pete on 2007-03-10 10:49:12
I make a post and you delete it !!! hmmmm the truth too much of a bitter pill aral ?
by pete on 2007-03-10 11:02:54
Hi Pete, Can you let me know which post you're talking about? The only comments I delete are spam comments. Please re-post your comment. I'm assuming that something went awry with the net/site while you were posting.
by aral on 2007-03-10 11:50:57
appears to be back .... wierdness !!!
by pete on 2007-03-10 11:58:53
Ah, I found your comment, Pete. It was caught by Akismet (anti-spam plugin). Most likely because you used a bogus email address while posting. Just FYI, I don't censor views that don't agree with mine, even if they are expressed in as juvenile a manner as your comment was.
FACT do a hugely important job in fighting the perpetrators of IP and copyright theft crimes, and these ads are a necessary evil.
What F.A.C.T. does does not benefit me as a consumer. As someone who pays for DVDs and movies at the cinema, I am penalized by having to sit through the F.A.C.T. notices. Like DRM, F.A.C.T. penalizes legitimate customers. This is wrong. How would you like it if you had to sit through "just a couple of minutes" of video telling you that stealing food is illegal (hey, IT'S ILLEGAL) every time to opened your fridge? How about a message about how stealing music is illegal (hey, IT'S ILLEGAL) every time you started up iTunes. Come on man, it's just a few minutes, don't be so anal about it! Oh yeah, and you'd probably love sitting through two minutes of a message telling you that copying other people's work is illegal every time you start up Microsoft Word (hey, IT'S ILLEGAL). In fact, if you actually believe what you're saying you shouldn't mind sitting through two minutes of legal lecture whenever you start *any* software application that deals with data or IP (which is, pretty much, any software application.) Would even you -- a "paid up member of FACT" stand for this? If not, how hypocritical of you.
but ‘d urge you o consider it VERY carefully
Oh so you just haven't read the bit about how I don't like to be threatened, have you? What is it with you people and threats? Such a lovely business model! Surely the mafia should be contracting you people for training lessons. "Consider it VERY carefully, Mr. Balkan... or else!" Give me a break! I'm pretty sure, since you have a financial interest in F.A.C.T. that you will choose not to see that their tactics are just plain wrong. I can only hope that you get to work with better people in the future. As the American author Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
by aral on 2007-03-10 12:11:57
[...] After reading this on Aral’s blog my belief that I am not alone in my frustration with F.A.C.T. was confirmed. [...]
by lyingonthecovers.net » Blog Archive » I won’t take it any more, F.A.C.T! on 2007-03-10 12:23:39
Hi Aral, Sorry - tend not to use real email address on blogs - been burned to many times with rawler bots etc. I have to say I would have been suprised if you had censored it. Ok to address your further comments. "at F.A.C.T. does does not benefit me as a consumer. As someone who pays for DVDs and movies at the cinema, I am penalized by having to sit through the F.A.C.T. notices. Like DRM, F.A.C.T. penalizes legitimate customers. This is wrong." Strictly speaking Aral, this isnt true. F.A.C.T does benefit you. Let imagine for a moment they didnt exist, and copying of hookie movies was so rife that there wasn't even a movie/music industry to speak of as all the existing distribution channels had broken down. Things wold be pretty boring. Or perhaps things progressed so far that there HAD to be airport style security at all cinemas/theaters to stop people getting in with recording devices. Perhaps you had your phone confiscated for the 2 hours or so you were in the movie .. not a desirable situation at all !! It benefits you because the success of it so far means costs haven't groan even more astronomically than they already have. Their messages are about education. It's a reminder to anyone sitting in the audience that stealing the content is wrong. You your self, less than a month ago had somebody - on initial impression at least - steal content from your site and as you believed passed it off as their own. Off course you took great hindrance at this, and not only blogged about it, but polluted the said offenders site with your own message. Why - because you dont like your things being stolen. So you did what you did - ASSUMING guilt. Is hat FACT do so different ? "How would you like it if you had to sit through “just a couple of minutes” of video telling you that stealing food is illegal" Sure this wold be major drag - but lets put this in context. You given several examples which are valid - but you miss the point and are actually miss guided on your statements. Technically when you enter a shop to buy food you are likely to see some form of message reminding you its illegal to steal. Ever seen a shoplifters will be prosecuted sign by the entrance ? Ok the vehicle for delivery is different but the message content is the same is it not ? The shop is NOT assuming all customers are going to steal, its merely reminding those that might be considering it that there are repercussions to their actions How else do you suggest they communicate this message As for your software argument - well you kinda do already - when you install most software there is an EULA you conform. I dont know if you've ever read one of these from start to finish in its entirety (will take a damn site more than a few minutes I can imagine) but again here we have a different delivery method but essentially the same message. Adobe doesn't assume your goingto copy and pirate your copy of the software, or that you are using a illigitimate version - its simply using the opportunity to remind you that should you being doing so - you are technically breaking the law. As for accusing me of being hyporitical - well I hardly think thats fair, and fruther as my point above proves you train of thought to get to this point renders it not even relevant F.A.C.T exists because there is a problem. Its funded by the Movie Industry and associated business that are involved legal, marketing, media etc etc and does a necessary job don't you think ? I wasnt threatening you att all with my urge for you to consider your actions. Far from it - I was advising you to think about what you were possibly going to do. You would just be goading the authorities. would you fly passed a marked police care at 100mph on the motorway openly flashing a bottle of scotch and a hand gun .I think not, because your a reasonably inelegant person. Ok so in the scale of things its not comparable but the fact is the law is the law - and on the whole its there to protect us - so live with it. I dp have a financial interest in F.A.C.T - as stated I am a paid up member, and my company is involved with the movie industry, but surely this makes me more not less qualified to comment on this - your quote from Sinclair is an interesting one as I think he's wrong on this - the fact its down to a wage packet doesnt take into account an individuals ability to assimilate information and form an opinion. A more accurate quote might be 'its difficult to get a man to understand something once he's formed an opinion and is too stuboun to consider that he might be wrong' ok ... ok .. I say the above with a missive amount of tounge in cheek - cos its applcs to me just as much as to anyone else I have 2 question though - and I would genuinely like to hear you thoughts. Firstly -putting aside the fact that you feel they are aggressive in their marketing and messaging strategy - do you not agree that the job that F.A.C.T do is a necessary one ? Secondly - and I touched on it briefly above - if fact aren't to use these short ads just prior to a film what other channels would you find acceptable. If your answer to the above is yes, then there must be some way this message can be got across
by pete on 2007-03-10 13:09:16
hmmm ... looks like the spam folder strikes again :)
by pete on 2007-03-10 13:13:48
> How different is it realy from the speed signs by the side of the motorway - we all KNOW what the limit is… but people need reminding from time to time It's very different from speed signs by the side of a road. An analogy would be if every speed sign were accompanied by a set of traffic lights that held you on red for two minutes, just to make sure you'd read the sign before you can pass. I'm not sure how difficult it is to understand, Pete, but the only people seeing this ads are the ones who have already paid to watch legally. FACT are preaching to the choir. But more than that, as the ads cannot be skipped FACT are preaching to the choir whilst pissing in their faces. And then they expect our continued support.
by Drew McLellan on 2007-03-10 13:37:52
Drew - ok - take you point - you anallagy is probably more accurate But it doesn't detract from my point - we all now know its illegal to download movies etc BECAUSE of ads like these Don't insult my intelligence with phrases such as 'I'm not sure how difficult it is to understand' when your being stubborn your self in the acceptance of my points. Its not about preaching to the choir ... if piracy stopped tomorrow - these ads will stop. And the only way it will stop is if people STOP BUYING from illegal sources. so its catch 22 - until such a point as this happens these ads/messages will likely continue it one guise or another. Its a sad state of affairs that it appears socially acceptable to flaunt the law and buy from these criminals peddling these hookie DVD's etc. Its bacuse of the minority that choose to do this, and download etc that the rest of us have to suffer. Vent your anger on them, not on the poor souls actually trying to do something about it !!!!!!!!
by pete on 2007-03-10 13:46:05
[...] I have other ideas, such as staging a protest at cinemas across the country, that I mentioned in a post I made recently on my personal blog. [...]
by It’s time to say “no” to FACT. at FACT Off! on 2007-03-10 13:51:53
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a F.A.C.T
by adrian lansdown on 2007-03-10 13:54:37
I guess one of the reasons for putting the adverts for FACT on original DVDs is so when the originals get copied it remains on the copy, same as for in the cinema if someone is there recording it the message carries through. Okay so this is not a great solution to the problem, perhaps frustrations would be better spent directed at offering better alternatives to tackling the problem than just flaming each other? :P
by DannyT on 2007-03-10 14:01:48
[...] Aral's blog Adriana’s blog [...]
by CISNKY » Support F.A.C.T. Off!! Day on 2007-03-10 14:07:27
I don't give a F.A.C.T neither
by aSH on 2007-03-10 14:13:55
Akismet doesn't seem to like FACT either! :) Apologies for the comments being marked as spam. I'm going to go through the spam folder at regular intervals and reactivate any comments that get caught. Danny: It would take two minutes for a pirate to edit out the FACT message. It's the same with software: How long do you think pirates spend to activate their software. Answer: They don't. It's legitimate users that have to go through this. The pirates have cracked the software anyway. Who jumps through hoop after hoop in the various DRM schemes? Legitimate customers. The pirates have removed these limitations anyway. I completely agree that a flame fest will achieve nothing productive. But raising public awareness about this will. I'm very sure that I am not alone in how I feel about this. The ironic thing is that if FACT Off! is successful in getting these messages removed, it will actually benefit the very people that fund FACT by building goodwill with their customers. If only they weren't too blinded by greed to see that. Pete: Thanks, man, for reminding me that I really needed to get the ball rolling on this. Without your nudge, it would have taken much longer for me to get around to setting up the site.
by aral on 2007-03-10 14:44:18
aral seriously dude - tell me how you think they should comunicate these maeesages then. rahter than just slagging them off
by pete on 2007-03-10 14:49:17
'pete' = FACT Employee/Troll me thinks... (cowardly at that)
by Pete on 2007-03-10 15:02:05
Pete: I'm sure that's something we'll be discussing on FACT Off! The key thing is that they need to stop stealing time from their legitimate customers with messages on DVDs that cannot be skipped and pissing off legitimate customer with negative messages at the cinema. These tactics are unacceptable.
by aral on 2007-03-10 15:03:06
hmmm - stealing time ... unacceptable tactics !! Aral - perhaps if you were more constructive in your efforts and channeled all the emotional baggage into fighting the root cause of this problem - ie - the pirates you'd be doing a much more beneficial thing !!!
by pete on 2007-03-10 15:09:11
Hi Pete, I *am* being constructive. FACT Off! is a very constructive effort on behalf of consumers protecting their rights. It's FACT's tactics that are destructive. Penalizing one group people (your legitimate customers) because you're trying to combat a different group of people (pirates) does not make sense. There's nothing constructive about that. FACT needs to be constructive in how it approaches the issue instead using the destructive tactics that it is currently.
by aral on 2007-03-10 15:19:30
pete you think I'm cowadly - how is this ? care to quantify these accusations !!! Aral sorry you simply "ARENT* being constructive. I can see that there are others who share your furstration, but surely we can use this as a way to channel some ideas on how best to do this. I'll ask again - for third time - and this is an open question to all - if we arent to have these messages - what other choices are there ... come on people - if you hate these ads so much - what else can be done ??
by pete on 2007-03-10 15:33:45
Pete,
I'll ask again - for third time - and this is an open question to all - if we arent to have these messages - what other choices are there ... come on people - if you hate these ads so much - what else can be done ??
I'll be more than happy to consult with you or FACT at my regularly hourly rate if you want me to spend time thinking about how FACT should best market itself. I'm sure there are people who are paid by FACT to think up campaigns. I'm not one of them. As is, I don't want to be subjected to those ads. I don't believe that we *should* be subjected to those ads. And I'm doing something about it. End of story. (Start of story?) :)
you think I’m cowadly - how is this ? care to quantify these accusations !!!
(I think Pete -- the other Pete -- was referring to your posting anonymously in his comment. Most people on my blog post with their real identities. I see that you've changed your email address to your actual one -- so I know who you are -- but it's up to you whether you want to reveal your identity to other people on this blog or not.)
by aral on 2007-03-10 15:37:04
Nice one Aral: there's nothing worse than hearing a message you don't need to hear for the millionth time. To me its simply a matter of 'justify yourself' type behaviour. These notices are one way in which FACT can justify their existence by doing something noticeable rather than constructive. For me, I'd like to see consumers pressure retailers directly and often. I think there's a youtube campaign in there somewhere: e.g. go up to the manager at your cinema with a camera, film upload their response to a complaint about having to sit through the bullshit for the 50th time! It would soon expose how unnecessary it all is.
by Ben Sauer on 2007-03-10 15:43:42
Aral - yes - for the sake of not getting stuff lost in the spam I have started using my real address - but pete watsons comments were out of order - I've made no secret of who I am. Interesting you pipe up about 'makret' rates as soon as I suggest you actually do something constructive ... trying to make up for all those '2' minutes you've apparently had stolen ? I'm just interested to see if anyone actually has any ideas ... but I'm suspecting people dont .. they just want a fight
by pete on 2007-03-10 15:45:18
Ben "These notices are one way in which FACT can justify their existence by doing something noticeable rather than constructive." hmmm - tad unfair fella - F.A.C.T do a tremdous job and its a thankless task. How else would you rather they be noticalble ! Have them rappel down walls and jump through windows in black ballaclavas ! Your youtube idea is an interesting one .. but be carefull about publishing content without consent of the interiewee.
by pete on 2007-03-10 15:52:37
Pete: Why should we have to come up with ideas for FACT? Really? Would you like to come up with some ideas for how Coke should market itself? Or Nike? Come on, set aside an hour or two and see if you can help them out. I'm sure they could do better. In fact, if any company does something that you don't like, maybe you should set aside some time to come up with free marketing ideas for them. OK, so to stave off yet another comment, asking me for the *fourth* time what they should do, here goes. There *is* an alternative to making people sit through an annoying message every time they watch a DVD: Don't make them sit through an annoying message every time they watch a DVD. (Man that was simple. You'd think they would have thought of that one.) If you have to put your message there, make it so that people can skip it. As for the message at the cinema: Maybe print a polite notice (not a threatening/accusing one) on the ticket. Don't subject people who are staring at the screen to be entertained to your message on the big screen. There: Two solutions and it didn't even take me two minutes to think them up. Do you seriously believe that the people at FACT lack the cranial capacity to come up with similar solutions if they actually want to?
by aral on 2007-03-10 15:55:17
My comment was not out of order. Not posting who you are, so that people can google you to see where you're coming from, does nothing but make people suspect your motives (and by all accounts you *did* hide who you were by using false email details). Hiding, or not publicly standing by your opinion, in any form is cowardly. This isn't China/Iran/Egypt - you wouldn't be imprisoned for it you know. No one here is going to do FACT's job for them. Especially when they do it so badly themselves. But, we ARE consumers and we're telling you (them) that we don't like what you're doing. And, my name is not Peter Watson. It seems the details, along with your spine, elude you...
by Pete on 2007-03-10 16:05:45
hmmm ... Aral - your quite interesting when you get emotional. I wasnt interly directing my question at you - more to all listening. I was simply interested to see if people had any ideas . I wasnt saying FACT dont have any at .. nor suggesting that they dont have the resources to do so. I was meerly interested to see if an interlgent persona such as your self had any thoughts others than .. " i dont like it ... *boo-hoo* *cry-like-a-baby* ... give me my ball back I'm going home" ...attiitude. Coke, Nike etc are a massive global corporations with mssaive markeitng budgets that far exceed anyhting FACT could dream off. To compare the two is hardly fair ! Your ideas though are fair - and I agree, it would help if ads were skippable, and the ticket idea is done in certain chains. However the back of a ticket is a valuable peice of media space and I suspect that budgets cant always strech to it.
by pete on 2007-03-10 16:10:40
pete ... hmmm ... so now I'm spine less. I'm not hiding behind any false prsona - I just chose at the start to use a false email address as I dont want to be bombarded by more spam that I already do !!! Please dont make this personal - it wont help anyone ! I'm not asking anyone to do FACTs job for them - I was simply interested to see if anyone had any ideas at all ... .. it would appear very few do though and just want to bleet on like the worlds going to end
by pete on 2007-03-10 16:20:14
didn't accuse you of hiding behind a false persona - just hiding. Again with the details! I'm out. You're not fun anymore.
by Pete on 2007-03-10 16:21:50
pete - whats the difference ? either way you were wrong - you know it and now you've run off ... but thats good as your obviously so insecure you have to hide behind cheap stabs at my apparent lack of details .... hmmm ... oh well
by pete on 2007-03-10 16:29:55
Just to add to this - I'm not a FACT employee on some crusade here - simply someone who agreee with the cause they are fighting against and feel a few peeps here are giving them a hard time needlessly.
by pete on 2007-03-10 17:39:05
Will the Petes please kiss and make up. Actually, no, I don't want that image in my head :) Seriously though, let's not get personal here. Pete (FACT): Realize that your initial comment actioning me to dislodge a certain household appliance from a certain bodily cavity didn't help at all in setting the tone. Don't open with a personal attack if you don't want others to counter with them. Now, let's all go watch some YouTube, shall we? (Oh man, imagine how many users YouTube would have if it showed the FACT message before every video.) Damn, I hope I haven't given them any ideas.
by aral on 2007-03-10 17:57:42
griefers, gotta love em. "hmmm … Aral - your quite interesting when you get emotional." and then: "Please dont make this personal - it wont help anyone!" Hey Aral: this guy has discredited anything constructive he might have had to say so successfully that I think you should delete all his posts immediately.
by Ben Sauer on 2007-03-10 17:59:39
OT: Hey Ben, just looked at the website for The Escape Committee -- I love it! So wonderful to see such a fresh design.
by aral on 2007-03-10 18:12:14
Ben - hows that ... my comments to aral were tounge in cheek ... I'd hardly say that the comment you highlight is an insult ... it certainly wasnt meant as one. AS for asking Aral to delete my post - I refer you to one of my ealier ones where I mention the bitter taste of truth... I have just as much right to share my feelings as you do .. and censoring my input by deleting it is hardly fair now is it:P Aral ... as for the YouTube/Fact message .. dont joke my friend - whilst it might not exactly be as you describe it ... dont be surprised if the day arrives where there is some form of message tagged on the front of messages ... personally I hope not :) Ps - my initial comment re the house hold appliance was probably not the best thing to kick off with .. i meant no menace by it ... it's a figure of speech I use and I shouldn't have used it in this instance.
by pete on 2007-03-10 18:12:50
I've been thinking about similar issues of late. Instead of focusing their efforts on the perpetrators of the perceived crime, they're instead inconveniencing the 99.99% of people who've paid full-price to enjoy their content and couldn't care less about the issue -- they're just trying to escape the mundane and enjoy some well-produced content. Then they get the purchased 'pleasure' of sitting through a condescending Ad telling them that they better not be a thief. I recently riffed on the difficulty of finding a local Rolex dealer in my area -- honestly, it was difficult. When I finally found an 800 number to get the information, they told me that they make it difficult to combat crime/theft of the watches. So... they make it really hard for their customers to find their product, to help prevent theft by the 0.000001% of people who'd want to steal their product. And, for that infinitesimal percentage, they think that tracking down this information isn't worth it? I just don't know how these decision makers keep their jobs. Someone is seriously asleep at the wheel. Onward... (Posted on behalf of Dave by Aral due to overly-protective Bad Behavior spam protection.)
by Dave Schappell on 2007-03-10 18:33:22
Pete said - "if fact aren't to use these short ads just prior to a film what other channels would you find acceptable" What's wrong with a logo plus a line of text on the cover (or even a 2 second logo plus text at the start of the DVD if you must). This would be analogous to the road sign or the shoplifter sign. (Posted on behalf of Paul by Aral due to overly-protective Bad Behavior spam protection.)
by Paul Booth on 2007-03-10 18:34:49
Paul - agreed - in fact there is very often such a thing - some DVD's do have the logo and an insert in the packaging .. not all though.
by pete on 2007-03-10 18:43:46
OT: Quick test to see if I can get a message past 'Bad Behavior'
by Paul Booth on 2007-03-10 19:25:49
Hey Paul, looks like you can! :)
by aral on 2007-03-10 21:27:17
perhaps if the message is moreentertaining ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA made me chuckle anyhows :)
by pete on 2007-03-11 12:38:50
-------------------- Technically when you enter a shop to buy food you are likely to see some form of message reminding you its illegal to steal. Ever seen a shoplifters will be prosecuted sign by the entrance ? -------------------- pete Why not put a sign like this in the Cinema or DVD shop entrance then? It seems like F.A.C.T. are doing a little self promotion and making more of a problem to keep themselves in business... fear sells..
by Rob on 2007-03-12 11:59:32
Since time immemorial, feature films in the UK have been preceded by a sign from the BBFC telling us about the film. As far as I know, no-one has ever lodged a complaint about that time period. It stays there for a few seconds, and gets maximum attention from everyone in the theatre because it means the film is finally starting. If you added a courteous message to that certificate, or maybe the few seconds immediately after it, I'm sure no-one would complain. As it is, without Orange Wednesdays we'd never go to the cinema any more.
by Howard on 2007-03-12 20:23:57
That piracy ad is so annoying. I'm totally with you. When i buy a dvd, if it has that idiot piracy ad, even it has an ad (a feature film trailer, copyright warnings before the movie, all those thinks that i hadn't payed for) i simply decyrpt it to my harddisk, and write just the movie to a writable dvd. this action is totally breaking the law, i know that, even if i'm simply creating a backup to get rid of all those boring stuff... those ads, mostly the idiot pirate ad forces me to do this. i'm not paying the movie companies to see advertisements. i just want my menus and movie...
by Emrah Gunduz on 2007-03-18 22:50:35
Cool! I don't think I'm going to have enough time to run this though so maybe we can do a show of hands to see if anyone wants to take it over. I'd be happy to keep hosting the site, etc. and take part :)
by aral on 2007-03-20 07:12:44
--- Excerpt from above >It benefits you because the success of it so far means costs haven’t groan even more >astronomically than they already have. > >Their messages are about education. It’s a reminder to anyone sitting in the audience >that stealing the content is wrong. Are you trying to say that corporate heads actually lower prices when they make more money? And seriously, who doesn't know that stealing is wrong. The existence of F.A.C.T. is almost as laughable as people who support it. I suppose it makes sense that their employees can't spell a simple word like "grown".
by Erik on 2007-03-22 21:31:42
I'm with you.... the poster is great. Let's hope this changes in the future...
by Alexander Graf on 2007-03-25 22:04:00
The IT Crowd (channel 4 comedy) has a pretty funny piss take of the F.A.C.T advert. "you wouldn't steal a baby".
by alex on 2007-10-24 14:44:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTbX1aMajow
by alex on 2007-10-24 14:50:42
I opine that to receive the mortgage loans from creditors you ought to present a great motivation. But, one time I've got a student loan, because I wanted to buy a house.
by ReevesKristy on 2010-11-30 03:04:53