I think my point still stands that embellishing one crime (or “crime”) by implying that it makes you likely to commit a separate crime is wrong-headed. If you killed someone by drink-driving, that would be as a direct result of the original crime, wouldn’t it?

Anyway, Adam Bowie says it more eloquently than me on his excellent blog.

Re: last comment. I suppose it is a big problem if you’re a movie studio losing out on millions. There again, as you say, there is a big assumption in the idea that everyone who downloads a film or buys a dodgy DVD would otherwise have gone to see it at the cinema.

Going off in another direction (sorry), have you seen the Orange ads at the Cinema, fucking genius! That’s how you make commercials.
You can RazzleDazzle my Fantazmagazzle!

Drink drivers may not be muggers but they are occasionally killers, like muggers, so I don’t think it helps your case to reference them; you’re guilty of playing as fast and loose with equivalence as the ad makers.

The ad is terrible though.

While at the cinema and watching that shaky ‘you wouldn’t steal a car’ one for the umpteenth time I thought about how they should do anti-piracy campaigns… as a series of short police procedural dramas (make them good, like Michael Mann would, so that they’ll be worth watching by themselves) that centre on the bust of a pirate-DVD factory and then trace the profits, keeping the preachy message to a single end-credit card. Anyone want to greenlight this with me installed as director?