Film Piracy, Organized Crime and Terrorism

flip-flop writes "The RAND Corporation has just released a lengthy report titled "Film Piracy, Organized Crime, and Terrorism" which attempts to link all three. The authors suggest that organized crime might be financing itself in part through movie piracy (PDF) — and in three out of 14 of their international case studies, they claim that profits from piracy end up with suspected terrorist organizations. But now for the interesting part! Quote from the preface: 'The study was made possible by a grant from the Motion Picture Association (MPA).' Ah, what a surprise..." The RAND Corporation has made a video summary of the report as well. TorrentFreak has an article disputing some of the report's claims, focusing criticism on RAND's interchangeable use of the terms "piracy" and "counterfeiting" — the report deals with the physical distribution of DVDs, making only brief mention of digital downloads. The MPAA and others have barked up this tree before.

"Intellectual Property"

[D4C5CE]

They're both based on "intellectual property".

Which you surely put in quotes for a reason (as in the words of Richard M. Stallman [gnu.org]):

The term "intellectual property" [...] leads to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form that these disparate laws have - that they create artificial privileges for certain parties - and to disregard the details which form their substance: the specific restrictions each law places on the public, and the consequences that result. This simplistic focus on the form encourages an "economistic" approach to all these issues.
[...]
Thus, any opinions about "the issue of intellectual property" and any generalizations about this supposed category are almost surely foolish. If you think all those laws are one issue, you will tend to choose your opinions from a selection of sweeping overgeneralizations, none of which is any good.

Organised crime link probably true,

[American Terrorist]

BUT NOT TERRORISM. In Shenzhen, the huge Chinese city right next to Hong Kong, they shut down almost all the street vendors selling unlicensed DVDs right before the Beijing Olympics. For a while you couldn't even find pirated Wii games in this city, it was crazy. After the Olympics they stopped caring too much, and a few of them re-opened, but most remain gone for good. (You used to be able to find a vendor every hundred yards or so on average, now perhaps one every 500 yards.) I asked the seller near me why the cops haven't shut him down yet, and he said it's not something he has to worry about, he's never going away. He sells from a ten foot by five foot table with a large canopy overhead. The cops could easily shut him down if they wanted to, they know he's there every day, they just don't care(there is a huge gov't building/police station less than 1km away). He pays them/the triads off, everyone makes money and goes their own way. From TFA:

The RAND report says that counterfeiting levels are not likely to decline unless governments worldwide commit more resources to fighting counterfeiting and devise tougher laws to protect intellectual property.

Probably the only useful piece of information in the entire report, and something everyone already knew anyway. Thank you RAND. How much did the MPAA pay you for the "report"? I want to get in on that action.

Re:me thinks that RAND doth protest too much.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with the linkspam?

Re:me thinks that RAND don't protest too much.

[Hatta]

Blatant misrepresentation. By 2000 the Taliban had banned opium production and by 2001,

No, that's a blatant misrepresentation. Read this story: [metimes.com]

Opium cultivation increased significantly each year under Taliban rule until they issued decrees in July 2000 banning poppy cultivation. The ban became effective after that year's crop was safely harvested. The Taliban took no steps to apprehend drug traffickers or seize stored opium, precursor chemicals, morphine, or heroin. Instead, the Taliban were selling their own opium at newly inflated prices and allowed others to sell, process, and transport drugs, with the Taliban taking their usual fees in taxes and protection money.

The ban that eliminated the 2001 crop had nothing to do with curtailing the drug trade. Heroin labs remained active and shipments and seizures of heroin coming out of Afghanistan actually increased compared to the year before the ban, although some of those shipments came from areas controlled by the Northern Alliance, who were also deeply involved in poppy cultivation.

The United States Drug Enforcement Administration said the ban was probably an attempt to increase the price of opium, which declined following a series of bumper crops. The Taliban also hoped to gain international recognition of their government beyond Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Re:me thinks that RAND doth protest too much.

[infonography]

likely driveby infection

Re:me thinks that RAND don't protest too much.

[Knuckles]

Interesting, thanks for the link. So it seems that different UN representatives say different things. I retract my clear-cut statement and settle for "I don't know, then".

Re:aXXo, FXG, FXM...

[Narnie]

I used the money I got from burning rips to DVD to fund a RAND research paper linking terrorism and pirating CDs/DVDs.

Re:me thinks that RAND don't protest too much.

[Anonymous Coward]

We wage so-called wars on organized crime, gangs, and prostitution rings. We have always worked hard to break up criminal operations. Drug users are not some special group that deserve exception.

I think you misunderstand, or you are trying to misrepresent the issue. No one is saying drug users should be specifically exempt from law enforcement, the point is that the law should not define drug users as criminals. The question is not whether we should enforce some law, but whether that law should even exist.

Just because you have a grip on your addiction doesn't mean a crackhead who is stealing spark plugs and DVD players has the same willpower you do.

There are also drug users who do not steal. The crime here was theft, and we already have laws against that. Society is perfectly capable of punishing the drug user that steals. Why should we have additional drug laws that punish the drug user who does not steal? We do not punish the guy having a beer in a restaurant because someone else drives drunk.