Slashdot Log In
MPAA Botched Study On College Downloading
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:13 AM
from the math-is-hard dept.
from the math-is-hard dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Associated Press reports that in a 2005 study the MPAA conducted through an outfit called LEK, the movie trade association vastly overestimated how much college students engage in illegal movie downloading. Instead of '44 percent of the industry's domestic losses' owing to their piracy, it's 15 percent — and one expert is quoted as saying even that number is way too high. Dan 'Sammy' Glickman's gang admitted to the mishap, blaming 'human error,' and promised 'immediate action to both investigate the root cause of this problem as well as substantiate the accuracy of the latest report.'"
Related Stories
Submission: MPAA Botched Study on College Downloading by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Any details on the actual study itself? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Any details on the actual study itself? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Any details on the actual study itself? (Score:5, Funny)
Very interesting, sir! VERY interesting!
Parent
Re:Any details on the actual study itself? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Human Error (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I guess changing the results does constitute "human error"...
Re:Human Error (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Human Error (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Human Error (Score:5, Funny)
litigate. LITIGATE! LITIGATE! LITIGATE!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There really is no reason to go insulting Daleks, especially since they can count...
Re:Human Error (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Human Error (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At a relatively small non-tech company I do some support for, the major means of movie sharing goes like this:
Every other week, an Asian man who speaks little English sells dvd's containing newly released or about to be released movies.
Those that get purchased are the passed around the employees to be viewed at home.
Any that turn out to be defective, or too dim to be watched, are returned to the Asian man for acredit against the next dvd's purchased.
The whole process is off-line and involves no P2P networks, college students or campus networks.
Cool. Where can I download one of these little asian guys?
Yeah but... (Score:5, Insightful)
While they are at least admitting that THIS report is highly erroneous, it does not even begin to address the plethora of similar reports they have bombarded the media and Internet with that have similar figures.
So... which reality are they going with? Agreeing that this report is highly off compromises many of their financial claims of the damages file sharing does... or perhaps they will just admit this report is wrong due to "human error" - but the others are right "Please believe everything else we are saying - even though it contradicts our admission of error here."
C'mon... who does the RIAA think they are fooling? (RIAA) retract all your ridiculous claims - or dont bother... the rest of us know the truth - and have for years.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:5, Informative)
This article is about the MPAA, not the RIAA. It is understandable how you got them mixed up, though. They seem to be molded from the same cloth.
Parent
Re:Yeah but... (Score:4, Funny)
There's definitely mold of some sort involved, anyway. Mycology knows better than to give in.
Parent
Re:Yeah but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Admittedly the root cause is not that the RIAA/MPAA is inherently evil - they're just PR people, mostly (which negates the whole 'they're not the evil ones' argument but bear with me for a second) - it's the member corporations that have the lawyers that are doing the suing and refuse to change their business model to respond to the market. The root cause of the problem here is that it absolutely blindsided the executives, and they had no-one at any kind of level who could tell them what was going on and what they needed to do about it to respond sensibly to the challenges the Internet posed. These executives didn't give a toss about computers, and frankly who could blame them, they're executives of music and movie companies and actually giving a toss about the industry they're in was seen as being revolutionary.
Instead, they reasoned that they'd be inevitably be reeled in by some kind of conman who came in and spoke big words about Internet at them if they tried doing something, and bunkered down and fought like old men. It's a big paradigm shift to think of one's product as essentially a PR stunt to sell peripheral stuff like concerts and DVDs, and for both those who are about the money and didn't want to experiment with new business models, and those who are about the art and didn't want their 'product' becoming essentially worthless, it's a challenge they aren't up to facing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Especially as MPAA also makes the accusation that piracy is used to fund global terrorism and organised crime, hence attempt
Completely accidental, can happen to anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Completely accidental, can happen to anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but seriously, that's exactly what they are. It's just as easy to say, for example "If those statistics were wrong, then how many other similar statistics were also wrong?", than to say "they did it on purpose to infiltrate our legal system". One has a reasonable train of thought behind it and is very constructive, the other is finger-pointing practically devoid of solid evidence, or even a decent plan of action.
Parent
Not that I don't disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
"Human" error (Score:5, Insightful)
First impressions (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:First impressions (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's exactly what it is. Movies come on all the time on HBO. They don't pay beyond a small subscription fee to watch them (HBO runs $10-12 per month and broadcasts an insane number of movies in that period. If you watched every one subscription fees would be like $0.05 per movie). If you're willing to suffer broadcast you needn't even pay at all. Songs play for free all day long on the radio. The media companies have painted themselves into the corner where people see media as free because largely, it traditionally has been made available as such. Many people have spent their whole lives buying the few pieces of media that were important to them (a pirated copy of Lord of the Rings or the Harry Potter series is not worth it for me - I want the real thing), and just recording the rest of it off of TV or the radio. P2P is simply the newest version of an old trick to these people, and you'll have a VERY hard time convincing them that it's wrong.
As such, this report saying 44% of college students pirate media will likely come across will all the impact of reporting that 44% of college students chop down trees at Christmas time.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First impressions (Score:5, Informative)
There's a reason why "Intellectual Property" laws have a whole separate framework of legislation that sets them apart from basic criminal legislation like theft of physical property, and that reason isn't because the legislators thought it would be fun to write the same sorts of laws twice. It's because legislators have to treat the concept of IP protection with a legal rationale which is completely separate from the idea of theft of physical property.
If you want to argue that IP protection is a good thing, then to make any sort of logical headway you're going to have to show (either through logic or empirical evidence) that IP protection provides some sort of net good to the general society. In addition, the issue is so emotionally charged that the argument that "it is obvious" isn't going to fly: you're going to have to provide references to either peer-reviewed economic studies that show a net benefit to society via IP protective-type mechanisms, or references to case studies of comparable societies with and without IP protective-type laws, where an analysis has been done on the relative pros & cons between each society.
Parent
Re:First impressions (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but stealing does not work that way. Theft means one thing and one thing only: To remove physical property from someone so that they may no longer use it and to keep it in your possession.
If you go into someone's house and use something, it's not theft. It's tresspassing.
If you break something of someone else's, it's not theft. It's vandalism.
If you take someone else's idea and claim it as your own, it's plagiarism. Not theft.
See, to steal is not the same thing as to infringe. They are two different words for a very good reason.
Besides, you're assuming that these people who download these movies would pay for them otherwise. Just because I wouldn't pay X dollars to see a movie doesn't mean I wouldn't pay X/2 to see it. Or, heck, some movies are so ridiculous these days, I'd only go to see them if someone paid ME. But I suppose others my settle for "free."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I said I see the similarity between 'stealing' and illegally copying movies
Actually, you said, and I quote, "it's called stealing" (seriously, it's easy for anyone to check, it's just two posts up, so you can't get out of this one, sorry). You didn't say "it's like stealing" or "it's similar to stealing", you said "it's called stealing". It's not called stealing. Yes, there are similarities to stealing, but using the word "stealing" for copying movies is AT BEST a metaphor, and like any metaphor, it's imp
Re:First impressions (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyrights not only protect artistic works - but indeed they are the basis of the GPL (which protects major open-source software such as the Linux kernel). When you see a company or person break the GPL license - justice is quickly meted out here.
That said, the "problem" isn't with copyrights et cetera - it is consumer expectations.
At least in the USA, we've been very used to paying for "premium" works, and getting older works for free or near free. The major air networks routinely broadcast movies, shows, and music for "free." The ones paying for these are advertisers, obviously - but beyond that it's essentially free. I can record onto tape, share it with a friend, keep it in on a shelf.
For premium works we buy tickets, subscriptions, DVD's, hard-back books, COTS software, and whatnot. The average consumer spends a lot of money here, and they feel that "buying" the work entitles them to fairly use these works.
Herein lies the problem: Consumers expect to be able to watch/read/listen on their computer - and they want to do it for around the same price they're already paying. They want choice, freedom to share with a few friends, and what have you.
Consumers have been "fooled" into thinking it was all really free because broadcasters have been making it essentially "free" for years. But instead of a VCR or a casette tape, we want to use computers - and the internet.
Copyright holders then did a stupid thing. They blamed their customers for stealing, while at the same time broadcasters are busy pumping content over the air. They called us "pirates" and evil-doers. They said consumers are rapist.
Here's your solution then. Start distributing your works over the internet. Sell the premium content for a fair price and stop calling the internet evil. Sure, you can build in a few protections like watermarking or digital signing to catch the real pirates! But stop turning against your customers!
In other words - do what you do best, and stop worrying about the kids that are *stealing* your works. They did it twenty years ago with mix tapes and VCR's - and yet the product still sells. The thing is - people really DO want a quality product. It is about the experience, it is about feeling like your getting a fair value for your money.
It's time to start moving those models that work in real space onto the internet. Broadcast it, sell tickets, sell movies, market it, and make money. Stop suing grandmothers and kids - it makes you look like monsters.
Parent
Re:It's an AP report that is linked (Score:5, Insightful)
Just for sake of argument, let's say you're more than right and this story receives equal coverage on the news; let's say every person who saw the original story sees this correction. Now, it's just a survey, so people know it represents an estimate of the actual percentage. If you were to ask each person what they thought the actual percentage was, would they guess 15%? Or somewhere in-between 15 and 44%? Like my OP's title suggested, first impressions are important -- even when we're talking about numbers.
P.S. And about actually going to the link: come on, man, this is
Parent
Re:It's an AP report that is linked (Score:4, Informative)
I'd expect this number to increase but not spectacularly, so I'd say it's getting reasonable coverage but no, it's not set the world on fire or anything.
Parent
[this is not legal advice] (Score:4, Interesting)
(I'd tell you all how (in a world of BitTorrent) this can be mad to work, but doing so would violate the First and Second Rules, respectively.)
Root cause of this problem would be: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Root cause of this problem would be: (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention that the "losses" figure is entirely fictitious in the first place. 3% of a fiction.
-
Parent
The truth wears spandex. (Score:4, Insightful)
just as I posted on K5... (Score:5, Interesting)
___
What alternatives do we have?
Our body of law gives rights to the creators and their protected ability of being the one to approve copies. Regardless of whether we agree or now with this, that is our situation.
Now, we take this to the "digital domain". Those older creators want, no.. need these protections as they see in the non-internet world. The only real way to "guarantee" this is by digital restrictions. The best way I think of this is that of a akin to a capability system and the copyright maintainer has an account on your machine.
However, our machines are ours. The geeks amongst us demand that we are able to control our software and hardware. What was unable to do in WinXP, Vista seems to offer the beginning of that capability system with the media companies at the kill switch. And to top it off, Vista has remotely disabling drivers for "holes" that might appear. For those that own a machine, this OS laughs in their face, as if saying "Bring It On!"
And there are many casualties. Those casualties are the Joe and Jane Publics that don't understand this issue close enough, or think that all needs to be done is burn to DVD... just like the iPod to music. When they find out that they are locked with binary garbage that cannot be used for any fair use purpose (backing up owned DVDs is fair usage).
And where are we now? When the users know they are eventually shafted, those that have the know-how will show others where to download the movies and the music they legitimately bought. Once they know they were taken advantage of, any feeling of "theft" (or whatever you call it) will be gone. The media companies had their chance to do their dealings with the public honestly, but have failed.
Just like língchí.. Death by a thousand cuts.
From K5 [kuro5hin.org]
And just to expand on that, the media guys had their chance to do honest dealings with the public and the artists. They instead thought they could continue on with their little game. They simply cant.
As a last comment, ill give the link [nationalreview.com] and the quote of the starting of the nasty fall of the media empire...
This past week's issue of The Economist has a heart-rending vignette from one of the most ruthlessly capitalist industries on the planet: "In 2006 EMI, the world's fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. "That was the moment we realized the game was completely up," an EMI exec told the magazine.
Re:just as I posted on K5... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the teens were thinking, "It's a trap. Remember what Sony did?"
Parent
Re:just as I posted on K5... (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering the big wigs brought them within headquarters, they most likely offered the best of what they had to offer. Maybe it was good, I dont know. All I do know is that music and movies are easy to get to online, pay or no pay. Why deal with archaic discs with formats from the 80's when 12 mp3s download in a reasonable amount of time, legality or not?
A service that could keep the record companies afloat is if they opened their collections completely, flat rate
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's just weird. Not sure I believe it happened. I don't like most of what's popular these days, but even I'd grab some freebies just to see what's up.
Another 27% (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Profits? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the "root cause" of their error can be attributed to their absolute requirement that they prove huge loses (on their imaginary profits) so they could go to congress and demand "something be done."
lying liars (Score:3, Insightful)
The Writers' Guild of America strike puts the lie to that. The media producers are making boatloads of money, and the WGA wants their fair share as creators of a lot of the content.
Lost profits???? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is much like Breathalyzers (Score:5, Insightful)
The parallel I see is that the damage is done and at this point it is unlikely to be undone.
They presented the argument they wanted to the people they wanted when they wanted to do it. Although many universities do not have programs in place to prevent piracy, the wheels are in motion and the fact that the decision to do so was based on inaccurate information will not stop anything.
Sorry, I downloaded... (Score:3, Interesting)