Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Education Your Rights Online

MPAA Botched Study On College Downloading 215

Posted by kdawson
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA Botched Study On College Downloading

Comments Filter:
  • by TheLink (130905) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:16AM (#22149608) Journal
    What was done in the study? Survey forms etc?
  • Human Error (Score:5, Funny)

    by snl2587 (1177409) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:18AM (#22149624)

    Well, I guess changing the results does constitute "human error"...

  • Yeah but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RobertM1968 (951074) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:18AM (#22149628) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by WK2 (1072560) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:37AM (#22149776) Homepage

      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.

      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.

      • by Nefarious Wheel (628136) * on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:49AM (#22149866) Journal
        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.

        There's definitely mold of some sort involved, anyway. Mycology knows better than to give in.

      • Re:Yeah but... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Merusdraconis (730732) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:37AM (#22150148) Homepage
        It took the RIAA members about ten years to get from music being shared on the Net to condoning some kind of online store. It's taken the MPAA members, what, about four? Assuming, of course, that iTunes is the first online store to get some kind of wide approval from the various copyright holders for both examples.

        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.
        • by CastrTroy (595695)
          Movies were being traded on the internet since at least 1999. That's 9 years. There's a couple video offers online, but as far as I know, none of them actually let you watch the movies on your TV set, short up setting up a computer specifically for your TV. Let me burn a DVD.
        • by zotz (3951)
          "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."

          So, like what, if you are about the art, the only value your art can have is along monetary lines?

          Free The Art (Sep 29/07)

          Free the Art and
          Free the Artists
          Let's break loose and
          Let's get started

          Change the world and
          Make it better
          There may be crying but
          We'll cry together

          Tired of waiting on
          Promised changes
          Come together and
          Let's rearrange it

          You can use those lyrics under a Cr
      • You are indeed correct... I had planned on putting the obligatory **AA, which got me thinking of the RIAA - add that to not enough coffee and you see what happens! :-)

        Thanks

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by dkleinsc (563838)
        They're not just molded from the same cloth, they're both controlled by the same 4 media conglomerates: Disney, GE, AOL Time Warner, and News Corp.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rtb61 (674572)
      Well perhaps US colleges and students should consider a class action law suit for the malicious mendacities and slanderous accusations published by the MPAA, clearly intended to bring into to ill repute and cause permanent harm the fine reputation of US college students, as well as college staff and administration for their implied complicity in illegal and hence criminal activities.

      Especially as MPAA also makes the accusation that piracy is used to fund global terrorism and organised crime, hence attempt

  • by Schmool (809874) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:19AM (#22149634)
    Somehow it always happens to this kind of outfits. Conveniently, the press will jump on the story of those ugly meanies who steal from musicians, but when it's rectification time, that isn't news.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gotzero (1177159)
      Exactly, the stat becomes truth by the time it is revealed as false, and no one cares. The BS gets accepted, and those crying foul are regarded as conspiracy theorists...
      • by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:43AM (#22150484) Journal

        The BS gets accepted, and those crying foul are regarded as conspiracy theorists...
        Ever noticed how mainstream media has turned "conspiracy theorist" into a negative label?

        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.
        • Conspiracy theory was never a good label, the mainstream media has simply applied it to more groups of people than it used to be used on.
        • by ATMAvatar (648864)

          If you look at the bigger picture, one could easily argue that both are credible.

          The first is merely a logical reaction to someone who has been caught in a bold-faced lie. How many other lies have they told?

          The second takes a bit of a larger picture to gain credibility, but sounds believable enough when you factor in lobbying efforts, extension to copyright, vast increases in the punishment for infringement, and a vast increase in the enforcement of infringement.

          How much more difficult would it have

    • by Smordnys s'regrepsA (1160895) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:10AM (#22150296) Journal
      What do you expect when the content producers are the ones producing the news content?
    • by sm62704 (957197)
      The same corporations that own the movie studios and recording labels also own the TV stations and newspapers.

      I, for on, do NOT welcome our new corporate overlords. Isn't the younger generation supposed to be burning shit down? Ours owuld have!

      -mcgrew
    • Well, it is receiving some exposure in the press; it was listed on the frontpage of the cbc.ca news website. However, it's now been pushed down to the "Science and Technology" section.

      http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/01/23/tech-mpaa-downloading.html [www.cbc.ca]
  • "Human" error (Score:5, Insightful)

    by symbolic (11752) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:20AM (#22149650)
    It's the kind of error whose magnitude is inversely proportional to the proximity of one's ass.
  • First impressions (Score:5, Informative)

    by darkhitman (939662) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:22AM (#22149658)
    Of course they promise they'll look into it now, because it doesn't matter anymore. The mass public will remember that the MPAA loses 44% of its profits to piracy. That it's since been proven incorrect is almost inconsequential, when it comes to public opinion: the mass media won't cover the story twice just for the sake of correctness, and people will buy right into the MPAA's 'accidentally-mistaken' survey's results.
    • by rolfc (842110)
      Yes, I guess you are right, but for me, I remember that they are liars and I have a place where to point those that are in doubt.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Did you even go to the link? It's an AP story which means every print organization in the US, both electronic and paper, is going to regurgitate it. It probably won't make the same headlines as the original figure did but it will still be in there.
      • by darkhitman (939662) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:02AM (#22149946)
        Not every story on the AP wire will get published by newspapers that subscribe -- the editors choose what to publish and what not to. I doubt this story will make any but the lengthiest print publications, and certainly not headline any online ones.

        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 /.
        • by mike2R (721965) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @04:36AM (#22150688)
          Well at the time of writing the AP story is dated at 10 hours old by Google, and there are 113 reprints of it according to Google News Sorted by date with duplicates included [google.co.uk] (seem to be a couple of non-duplicates on the same topic as well, Ars Technica for example, and this Slashdot story will probably show up at some point).

          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.
          • The original story would have been on page 2. This story will be on page D-14, botton left corner of the page under an advertisemsnt, under "correction", following ian item about someone's name bein misspelled and the color of an ice cream wrapper being wrong.

            A truthful, non-corporate-stooge newspaper would have big black headlines on page 1 screaming MPAA LIES ABOUT SURVEY RESULTS (smaller headline underneath that one) "Piracy" taking almost no toll on studios, despite fake study's claims"
            • by mike2R (721965)
              Well it won't be filled under "Correction" - it's a standard AP story, not a mistake admission. That said I'm sure you're right that the it won't be in a particularly prominent position in a physical newspaper.
    • by MBGMorden (803437) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:32AM (#22150112)
      The thing is, I don't think anyone CARES. Nobody I know even considers downloading from P2P wrong. Some of these people are indeed dense, but even with the smart ones they quickly connect the dots and realize that they aren't taking anything from anyone. Many people actually consider the few of us that download stuff from iTunes "stupid" (eloquent huh?) because I'm paying for something that's available for free in their minds.

      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aussie_a (778472)
        By infringing on the copyright of big media, you hurt those who would provide you with what you want. There are many indie to small time producers out there putting shows online (I'll admit I don't know of many online-only movies), and by pirating instead of going to these people, you're hurting them. Either pay for the content or go to the indie producers, or go to something else who you'll inevitably help. But whileever you pirate, you're simply as bad as the MPAA.
    • by arrrrg (902404)
      Of course they promise they'll look into it now, because it doesn't matter anymore.

      Or maybe it does matter. They got the benefit of claiming 44% losses 2 years ago, and now that they revise the estimate down, they can put out a new "study" claiming 44% losses this year *and* claim that losses have more than tripled in the past 2-3 years! The horror! Then, in 2010 ... well, you get the idea.
    • by rhizome (115711)
      Of course they promise they'll look into it now, because it doesn't matter anymore.

      Should be fruit of the poisoned tree. Every law that touched that figure should be automatically repealed. If it isn't that way, it should be.
  • by adolf (21054) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:22AM (#22149664) Journal
    Remember, kids: In America, downloading movies isn't illegal; uploading them is.

    (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.)

  • by mdenham (747985) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:23AM (#22149674)
    Fearmongering, obviously. "ZOMG IT'S 15 PERCENT" doesn't have quite the same impact as "OH LORD THEY'RE CAUSING NEARLY HALF OUR LOSSES".
    • Fearmongering, obviously. "ZOMG IT'S 15 PERCENT" doesn't have quite the same impact as "OH LORD THEY'RE CAUSING NEARLY HALF OUR LOSSES".

      Exaggeration is not fear-mongering. Yours is the second post in the last day or so to get it wrong. Fear-mongering is about inducing or playing upon actual visceral fears that the public has. You know, of dying or of your family dying, that sort of thing. The public in general doesn't give a rat-sass about the fiscal health of the movie studios. They certainly do not lie awake in bed at night worrying about it the way some people do about terrorism.

    • by Alsee (515537) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:07AM (#22150284) Homepage
      Actually if you kept reading it was 3% attributed to college campuses (the issue here).

      Not to mention that the "losses" figure is entirely fictitious in the first place. 3% of a fiction.

      -
    • by sm62704 (957197)
      Losses? What losses? Didn't they make billions of dollars last year?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:26AM (#22149698)
    Well before this ball gets too far ahead. Let's ask ourselves, if the MPAA can overestimated their "facts"? What makes anyone think that the opposition has underestimated theirs?
  • by Creepy Crawler (680178) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:31AM (#22149720)
    My content from the financial perspective of DRM.. and pretty much why they're done for.

    ___
    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.
    • by Volante3192 (953645) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:48AM (#22149854)

      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.

      Maybe the teens were thinking, "It's a trap. Remember what Sony did?"
      • by Creepy Crawler (680178) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:20AM (#22150040)
        I really doubt it.

        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 .10$ per download. And if you lost the songs, another .10$. Dont keep records of who bought what, too much bookkeeping, and it's just a dime. I just wonder how much money they would make on that kind of deal...
        • by Mitreya (579078)
          A service that could keep the record companies afloat is if they opened their collections completely, flat rate .10$ per download. And if you lost the songs, another .10$. Dont keep records of who bought what, too much bookkeeping, and it's just a dime. I just wonder how much money they would make on that kind of deal...

          Quite a bit, I think. I know that I have used allofmp3.com regularly. And I know I have downloaded some songs multiple times (sometimes at least 3 times) because at 10-15c a song it is e

        • by zotz (3951)
          "A service that could keep the record companies afloat is if they opened their collections completely, flat rate .10$ per download. And if you lost the songs, another .10$. Dont keep records of who bought what, too much bookkeeping, and it's just a dime. I just wonder how much money they would make on that kind of deal..."

          Well, I have been saying 5 cents for years but 10 might work fine. But they need to do it soon. If they wait too long, I will have given up on my old loves and be playing only with music h
    • by penix1 (722987)

      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.


      Maybe they should have saved those Perry Como, The Early Years CDs for someone a little more mature than teen girls?!?!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      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

      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.
      • by Alsee (515537)
        none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free.

        That's just weird. Not sure I believe it happened.


        Consider, was it even worth the effort needed to convert the disks to MP3?

        I have all the old music CDs that I actually WANTED and PAID FOR from the 80's and 90's, and it's generally not worth the hassle of manually converting them to MP3. Is it really worth grabbing random disks to sort through if I then had to MP3 convert anything I actually wanted to keep? You have to rip any good songs to M
      • by sm62704 (957197)
        The corporates have the kids brainwashed. The younger folks don't care about physical property, they've been led to believe that imaginary property is real, making the real no more real than the imaginary.

        So now, copyright infringement may well lead to real thieft, since the imaginary is now as real as the real.

        -mcgrew
  • Another 27% (Score:4, Funny)

    by EEPROMS (889169) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:08AM (#22149982)
    Of losses were found up the marketing departments nose.
  • Leverage... (Score:2, Insightful)

    From TFA:

    "The 44 percent figure was used to show that if college campuses could somehow solve this problem on this campus, then it would make a tremendous difference in the business of the motion picture industry," Luker said.

    Looks like they need some huge numbers to get their campus funding bill pushed through with all those nasty, torrent-blocking strings attached.
  • How is vastly overestimating (to enhance their point) equal to "botching"?
  • I have been slacking off as of late. I'll just have to triple my output from last semester, but I doubt everyone will so I'll have to compensate, maybe twice that? Does it count if I watch a movie again or show it to a group? Frankly, there isn't much worth downloading.
  • "There were only 156 actual burners, but some run at very high speeds: some as high as 40x. This is well above the average speed,"
  • Most folks I know gave up on downloading illegally- movies at least. Music is still a download staple. The movie files took too long, or it wound up corrupted or some geektard used the MOLOTOV9 video codec that only runs on mainframes in secret Russian gulags, or some other nonsense.

    We all just copy Netflix/Blockbuster Online rentals and share via physical copies. The results are perfectly consistent.
  • Profits? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rossz (67331) <ogre@nOsPaM.geekbiker.net> on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:52AM (#22150220) Homepage Journal
    This is the same industry that had the balls to say the movie "E.T." didn't make a dime.

    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)

      by ChipMonk (711367)
      This is the same industry that had the balls to say the movie "E.T." didn't make a dime.

      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.
    • by sm62704 (957197)
      "The VCR is to the movie industry hat Jack the Ripper was to women" - Jack Valenti, then head of the MPAA

      -mcgrew

      (Hey, they should use some of my slashdot journals or old K5 diaries as scripts. My life is a lot more interesting than today's movies, unfortunately for me)
  • "human error" (Score:2, Informative)

    by seeker_1us (1203072)
    Didn't they say something similar when they found out Sadaam had no WMD?
  • ...the movie trade association vastly overestimated how much college students engage in illegal movie downloading.

    What makes you think that's a "botch"?
  • Lost profits???? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by secretwhistle (1116881) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:42AM (#22150482)
    With the motion picture industry's creative accounting, it's a wonder there's any "profit" to be lost. The following is taken from the Hollywood Law Cybercenter website. http://www.hollywoodnetwork.com/Law/Hart/columns/ [hollywoodnetwork.com]

    A substantial portion of the direct cost of a film produced on a studio lot is charges for the use of the studio's facilities, including the sound stages, vehicles, equipment, etc. Although the studio incurs no out-of-pocket expense for providing these facilities, it insists that the charges are proper because they comply with the SPD language defining production cost. The charges made for using these facilities are substantially in excess of the actual costs... For example, a studio will charge a motion picture for the use of a vehicle at a rental rate based upon the rental rate being charged by the leading rental-car companies, typically $45 per day or more. This charge, which includes a profit rate equivalent to the rental companies' profit rate, will be made even if the vehicle has long ago been purchased by the studio, and even if the cost of the vehicle has been charged against other films...

    I would think this would keep them rolling in money without having to deal with inconveniences like paying taxes or profit percentages.
  • Q: has this ever been submitted as evidence in a Court case? Could be fun to revisit that ..
    • Your post made me think of the first episode of STNG and I had to read it twice to realize that it actually wasn't.

      No wonder I can't get laid!
  • by Evets (629327) * on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @04:13AM (#22150608) Homepage Journal
    When the decision of whether or not to allow Breathalyzer evidence into court came into play, they downplayed the inaccuracy issues by a factor of 10. I want to say they report inaccurate results 20% of the time and they claimed a 2% error rate, but you'll have to ask jeeves or google if you want the right numbers.

    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.
    • by sm62704 (957197)
      Pshaw, everybody knows google, jeeves, and wilkipedia are innacurate. That's why when I'm in need of absolute accuracy I go to the uncyclopedia [uncyclopedia.org] (featured article of the day is linked, and fortunately today's is about humungous breasts).

      So I looked up "Breathalyzer" and found that they don't exist [uncyclopedia.org]. Breathalyzers, I mean, not humungous breasts. Unless of course you're referring to Bighead [slashdot.org], who has no breasts at all. She could be in the Guiness book as the world's flattest chested woman. Of course the skinny l
  • I understand why record companies are doing crap like this, scare tactics are basically all they have left. But movie studios already have a system that can survive the digital era. They are rolling in cash right from DVD sales, and theaters aren't going away any time soon. But the same people they are going after with lies, threats, and misinformation campaigns are the people that are going to be the biggest consumers in five or ten years. How can they not see that?

    Get a comprehensive digital distrib

  • by Yvanhoe (564877) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @05:17AM (#22150858) Journal
    ... these songs, yeah I know, it is a lot of them. I know that's wrong, but that's a human error, you can surely understand that ?
  • The 44% is the number which they have been using to influence the U.S. congress.

    A number below 15% is just too large of a margin.

    This is an outrage and my congressperson ought to be ashamed of herself for buying into this crap.
    • by sm62704 (957197)
      This is an outrage and my congressperson ought to be ashamed of herself for buying into this crap.

      He's not buying, he's selling. The MPAA is buying.
  • They're going to keep the flawed report out there, so they can keep screaming about the wrong statistics and simply create corroborating reports in the future.

    Nothing to see here. Move along!
  • Even 15 percent seems a little high.

Overdrawn? But I still have checks left!

Working...