Latest 'Think Of The Children' Scaremongering: Pirated Films Might 'Disturb' Them

from the don't-look-now dept

Just last week we heard how Russia has extended its "think of the children" law to include copyright infringement. That was a classic case of function creep, but here's a more direct invocation of "the children" in order to attack unauthorized downloads of files, this time in the UK:
One in five young film fans (18%) admit they have been disturbed by the movies they have watched on pirate websites and two thirds (65%) wish they had checked the film's official age rating first.

While almost half of children and teens (42%) admit to being aware of rules in place at home designed to restrict what they can and can't look at on the internet, the research commissioned by The Industry Trust for IP Awareness, in partnership with the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), shows a quarter (25%) download or stream movies from unofficial sources, which offer no guidance on age ratings.
Now, there are a heap of issues with this. For example, what exactly does "disturbed" mean in this context? Some films are deeply disturbing, but in a good sense ("Schinder's List", for example, rated "15"), because they bring new but troubling knowledge: does "disturbing" include those? Or only the "bad" ones -- in which case, how is "bad" defined? Unfortunately, I can't find the original research to explore that, or even to see how the questions were framed (always a critical issue for such surveys.)

But leaving aside all those methodological questions, there is a key flaw with this "for the children" argument, which is that we don't know what percentage of children who watch legal downloads and DVDs are "disturbed" by what they see. That's a key number, because it needs to be lower than the one pertaining to pirate sites if the latter is to have any relevance. It might be, for example, that children are more disturbed by their parents' cinematic library than by what they search out for themselves online; after all, such searches are likely to be based on recommendations from their friends, or on what children read on other sites -- in other words, an informed choice with plenty of context.

What's interesting here is how the currently-fashionable "think of the children" trope is being deployed as part of a campaign against piracy. As such, it's part of a long tradition of trying to frighten people away from unauthorized downloads by suggesting that they fund terrorism, are packed with malware or make your hair fall out (OK, I made up that last one.)

So here's a suggestion. Instead of resorting to scaremongering, which never works anyway, why doesn't the British film industry try offering a range of good online products at fair prices? After all, it seems to be working elsewhere....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    RyanNerd (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 9:53am

    Copyright Nazi's

    Disturb me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 9:53am

    I think that if the children are disturbed we should find out the studios that made those movies and shut them down along with severe punishment for those in their representative organisms (the British MAFIAA, I mean, MPAA) for letting such a thing hit the audiences unfiltered.

    It's amusing when their own methods are used against them eh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mark Harrill (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:00am

    As a married adult without children, and no plans to have children, I want no scheme that interferes with my right to see distrubing, dirty, disgusting films (or any more bad 80s cartoon movies remade)! When will someone take into account my feelings on the subject and how these filters are going to deprive me of happiness?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:06am

    Makes sense

    The pirated version of Jungle Book is full of child unfriendly nastiness while the legit version is pure and innocent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:06am

    Quick question...what does the content of the movies have to do with their status to being infringed upon or not?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:56am

      Re:

      Actually it works like this - you shut down all the visible semi-legit sites where you can download movies and you drive the downloaders to increasingly more obscure sites which are less likely to classify the films appropriately and will have a greater proportion of "dodgy" material.

      So this "harm to the children" is the direct result of the "war on piracy"!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Richard (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:57am

        Re: Re:

        The above comment was mine - not signed in - bother!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 1:56pm

        Re: Re:

        The BBFC problem with unauthorized website isn't that their rating are inaccurate, it's that their not there. Tho the BBFC could just recommend that people to look-up the ratings on their website or if that to risky because of Hollywood, just throw it out there at the end of there video, since they know there are people who will continue to download, in spite of their advice.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Aug 14th, 2013 @ 12:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "they know there are people who will continue to download, in spite of their advice."

          Or, in some cases, because of it. I know numerous people who will immediately download a movie if it's going to be heavily cut or banned in the UK.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 11:05am

      Re:

      Nothing. They are trying to say that unauthorized access makes it easier to get a movie without knowing the official ratings or something. Basically calling people retards who can't use a search engine to check it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Simon, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:10am

    I wonder how many parents have put a film on and accidentally disturbed their child?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Alt0, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:21am

    Growing up during the Vietnam War, I found the NEWS to be extremely disturbing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:23am

    Hitler, too, enjoyed illegally downloading movies and we all know where that led.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lord Binky, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 11:27am

      Re:

      Odd, I heard he never illegally downloaded a thing...and we all know where that led.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 11:39am

        Re: Re:

        He was both simultaneously in a state of downloading things illegally and not downloading things illegally.
        Quantum file sharing.
        Hitler's Cat.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    TasMot (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:34am

    Well Lookie 'Dat

    They present their case the same way the NSA & DOJ present cases to the FISC, one sided, sloppy, and no basis in reality. It's a Win Win for them. Everybody else gets to have Big Brother decide what they can do or watch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    MonkeyFracasJr (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:35am

    You mean .....

    When children circumvent their parents' recommended viewing rules they find out b>WHY their parents recommended that they not watch that film?

    WEIRD!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Baldaur Regis (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:35am

    ...two thirds (65%) wish they had checked the film's official age rating first.
    How tastefully squeamish and well-mannered these British children must be! Perhaps it's just my crude sensibilities that detect a whiff of the barnyard surrounding this 'fact'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Postulator, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 5:30pm

      Re:

      ...two thirds (65%) wish they had checked the film's official age rating first.

      It sounds like one of those 73% of statistics that are made up on the spot. Or came directly out of a leading question.

      What kind of person just comes out with "I wish I'd looked at the small print age rating on the side"?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Aug 14th, 2013 @ 12:40am

        Re: Re:

        If I had to guess, the actual question was along the lines of "would you have watched the film if you'd known it was an 18?". But, again, this is a matter of education and parenting, not an argument for other measures on what adults can access.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:39am

    The old "can't quantify so TREND must be invalid" line.

    Listen, kids: obviously "disturbing" movies are obviously disturbing. You're just childishly saying that if one doesn't know exact numbers, then NO conclusion can be drawn. -- Try this: hold your hand closer and closer to a flame until you're convinced that it's a bad idea, despite lack of numbers on how many skin cells you've destroyed.

    And the last paragraph is just startling non-sequitur, not even on-topic.

    Why so many self-referring links here? Techdirt logic: old assertions prove new assertions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lord Binky, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:53am

      Re: The old "can't quantify so TREND must be invalid" line.

      Ugh.. why'd my post have to get so close to yours...*sigh* and Good point, stupid people will confuse that the problem discussed is about an ambiguous trending when the real problem is with an ambiguous classification that has no correlation to harm or danger.

      As for your silly example, if you're outside in very cold weather, holding your hand near a flame may be a GOOD idea, if you're wearing suitable hand protection holding your hand over a flame is not a decisively bad idea. To be relevant to the actual issue, you would have to use a term like 'discomfort' instead of 'bad idea'. Terms like 'disturb' and 'discomfort' give no indication to any level of danger, which is what the scare tactics are trying to insinuate .

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 11:45am

      Re: The old "can't quantify so TREND must be invalid" line.

      i don't need to try that. i learned long ago FROM MY PARENTS not to touch hot things

      what are you? an infant?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 12:44pm

      Re: The old "can't quantify so TREND must be invalid" line.

      "And the last paragraph is just startling non-sequitur, not even on-topic."

      I assume the last paragraph before the one I just quoted. The one with the childish name calling and lack of any coherent counter-argument?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:40am

    I'm disturbed these children don't have proper parental supervision from their parents.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:43am

    I find it incredibly difficult to accept that "(65%) wish they had checked the film's official age rating first". That's utter BS. Name one child who was not disappointed when they could not watch a "grown up" movie? Or one child that didn't fight their parents to watch said movie? Or even one parent that said "you're 12, this is 13. Go away"?

    B.S.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 2:34pm

      Re:

      When I was a kid I got really into sci-fi. There came a certain R-rated sci-fi movie I desperately wanted to see. I had really overprotective parents who wouldn't let me see R-rated movies. I begged and pleaded to no avail. I finally did get to see it about 3 years later, when I sneaked a late-night viewing on HBO at a relative's house.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:45am

    Basically what they're saying is: "Children's opinion are only relevant when they're the opinions we want them to have", otherwise they're not mature enough to be able to have opinions.

    "Think of the children only if it fits in our agenda".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:48am

    Piracy doesn't cause hair loss? What about these dudes then?
    http://boingboing.net/2008/09/29/mysterious-cargo-on.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:52am

    I watched The Human Centipede. It definitely disturbed me!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 11:26am

      Re:

      I refuse to watch it. Every single person that told me about it said they were deeply disturbed o.o

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 12:24pm

        Re: Re:

        Meh, it wasn't that bad - the idea's more disturbing than the execution IMHO. Both films are worth seeing for the lead crazy guy performance else it's relatively. mediocre.

        Then again, I am a rather seasoned horror fan who saw it at it's world premiere at a horror festival, so take that with whatever the appropriate pinch of salt is.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ltlw0lf (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 11:53am

      Re:

      I watched The Human Centipede. It definitely disturbed me!

      I watched the South Park version, and figured I saw all I needed to see of that movie watching that episode.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:57am

    I wonder what % of children would find accidently seeing their parents having sex disturbing. They should outlaw that. Think of the children!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 11:41am

      Re:

      That's not a child issue! As a middle-aged man, I can honestly say that if I accidentally saw my parents having sex I would be greatly disturbed, too.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    %methis, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 10:57am

    so if 18% of 42% of 46% are watching films online wait.. exactly how many kids were included in the study ? i'll wait for that response i have to go eat 25% of my 50% burger that has 20% less fat than 50% of the other possible beef products in 25% of of my local region

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Vic, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 12:01pm

    I do not want to live in the UK anymore... They are too worried about too many children... As mentioned above by Mark Harrill in post nr 3, I too am a married adult with no kids and no plans to have any... Why am I being punished by the UK government... Can we put together a class action suit against this? Can we get a tax break for not having kids that needs protecting... You guessed it... NO...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 12:35pm

    Pirated Films Might 'Disturb' Them?

    This must be some bunk research, everyone knows kids love pirate movies!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 12:41pm

    It's rather sad that all these recent stories can be directly related to by tales from my own childhood in the 80s. Disturbing, violent films were readily available then - on VHS and Betamax. Even those that were banned were available with a little searching, and half the video stores near me didn't care whether my 12 year old self was renting Elm Street. They did nothing to normal kids except induce a few nightmares and provide a handy scapegoat for right wing morons wanting to distract from war, poverty and unemployment.

    I will note that this is a report by the BBFC, who not only have a vested interest in keeping their position as the official gatekeepers (it's illegal to distribute any movie without a BBFC rating) but are also constantly attacked by said morons who want to blame them for any objectionable material their own tiny minds stumble across. The current people in charge seem to have found a happy medium where very few films are banned or heavily censored nowadays and they're happy to keep adult films rated as 18 uncut.

    I hope this doesn't change their minds. Not only would that be pandering to idiots of the worst kind, it clearly would make any difference. Once again, sadly, we're back to educating and parenting kids properly as the only real solutions to any problem, but that doesn't make for distracting headlines.

    Oh, and one funny anecdote I've just remembered. IIRC, there was a report where researchers asked kids about the films they were watching, and some people were horrified by the results. The experiment was repeated, this time peppering the film titles with fake but lurid sounding titles included among the real ones. The kids, naturally, claimed to have watch these fake films as well as the real ones. They just wanted to sound hard in front of their mates. I wouldn't be surprised if the same mindset is at work here, and/or the kids were telling them what they thought they wanted to hear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 12:45pm

    Even when I was a child, I rolled my eyes at the "Appeal to Children" excuse. Between corrupt mayors caught with crack and Hollywood executives sexually harassing young celebrities such as Cory Feldman, I have only one thing to ask, "what in the living Hell qualifies these people to tell ME what's right and wrong?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Andrew Lee (profile), Aug 13th, 2013 @ 1:08pm

    I guess children are too stupid to go look at IMDB because unlike adults they will blindly watch anything. Even if they have no idea what it is.
    /s

    Now on to the pressing matter - I did every single thing I could to watch shit I was not supposed to be watching as a child. Then again I did grow up in the era of Pee-wee Herman's creepy ass. That guy scared me far more than any psychopathic serial killer flick.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 13th, 2013 @ 2:18pm

    i think what is going on here is that governments everywhere have realised how dangerous to them this internet weapon is in the hands of the people. they are therefore doing their damnedest, bit by bit, to close it down as far as being used by the ordinary people. in that way, the governments will know they are more safe than at present. they will be able to jump on to whoever says whatever because they will be spying continuously on everyone and any site not liked will be shut down for any/no reason at all other than it either tells the truth or allows people to convey the truth to others. the way info has been transmitted from countries that have been suffering from unrest has been applauded, until, that is, that it's their country involved. then they want all news outlets stopped. with the internet being the fastest and covering literally everywhere, it is of prime importance to be controlled. apart from the USA, nowhere else appears to be trying to take sole 'ownership' of it. i would guess that there has/is going to be agreement that each government is responsible for what goes into and out of it's own country. we, the people, are going to be well and truly fucked, that's for certain!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Aug 14th, 2013 @ 12:53am

    "...make your hair fall out..."

    It's too late for me! Save yourself!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    dartigen, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 1:12am

    Because it's totes a new phenomena

    Because prior to Internet piracy kids totally didn't watch movies they weren't supposed to.

    My friend used to get her (much older) brother to buy us horror movies because there was no way anyone was going to sell SAW to a pair of 14 year olds. I watched the Alien series when I was 9 - it was on TV very late at night one week and I stayed up to watch it.

    Kids will go out of their way to watch films they're not supposed to - for better or for worse. And it's no easier today than it was before piracy - less expensive, maybe, but the ease of it hasn't changed any.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Kleuske, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 3:39am

    Definition:

    To disturb: Coming down on your kid and you like a ton of bricks for downloading a film that was broadcast a year ago, especially by the entertainment industry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    viewster (profile), Oct 7th, 2013 @ 6:53am

    Disturbing ads!

    They'd better start filtering the ads! Nobody cares the kids might be watching them! I mean, whenever I'm looking for free movies online, movie/book/music news/reviews or even clothes/shoes online, I get tons of that flashing, noisy, jumping, body-parts-shaking crap! Downloading crappy stuff at least requires some skills and time, as well as having the patience to watch it despite bad quality, but the ads can be seen instantly by anyone, at almost every page. I'd rather explain to my kids what's the difference between this and that horror movie creature, than why people need big... er...body parts and lots of orgasms every day!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This