Film Piracy, Organized Crime and Terrorism 198
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.
me thinks that RAND doth protest too much. (Score:5, Insightful)
Only one solution then... (Score:5, Insightful)
If something's available for less there's always someone who will buy it. The only solution therefore is to make this stuff available for free and starve the "terrorists" and "organised crime syndicates" of money. Anyone who opposes peer-to-peer networking supports terrorism.
Re:Ummm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're both based on "intellectual property". So they're gambling that laws protecting "IP" will be good for them.
Re:me thinks that RAND doth protest too much. (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly. if you pirate movies are music make sure you get the online free version instead of the half price fake cd/dvd version.
In fact Organized crime would most likely love to have online P2P stopped. their low prices can't beat free.
Re:Only one solution then... (Score:4, Insightful)
My understanding is that the supposed "terrorist-counterfeiters" are selling physical media. Forcing them to compete with a free product could indeed put them in the red - they would not be paying customers, but rather their suppliers of media.
Re:me thinks that RAND doth protest too much. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed - by this reasoning, the Government should be promoting, and certainly not opposing, free downloading, as part of its War On Terrorrr. Surely, the threat of terrorism is far more serious than any alleged loss of a few sales? "If it saves just one life" etc :)
Re:Organised crime link probably true (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are talking about the sales of illegal copies of CD's, then this is likely to be a source of income for organised crime.
Perhaps, but they didn't say "a source of income", they said "funding their activities" - as in "subsidizing our extortion and illegal drug operations" by selling bootleg copies of Gigli.
I tell you, it's a sad, sad day when the Mafia can't make ends meet with cocaine and heroin, and instead has to resort to movie piracy!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fundamental Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a fundamental difference between economic and non-economic piracy.
Yes, economic pirates go for the galleons and merchantmen as well as plundering small, poorly defended towns; whereas non-economic pirates attack frigates and other warships, however these are usually referred to as privateers.
Oh wait, what were we talking about?
Copyright infringement is not the same as "piracy". No one dies. No ships get sunk. And nothing gets STOLEN. Copyrighted works get digitally copied, though.
Re:The RAND Corporation (Score:1, Insightful)
And the can fix this or they will cease to exist. Nobody likes think tanks that are this easy to bribe who can't hide it.
Re:speaking of interchangeble terms (Score:5, Insightful)
Organized crime would most likely love to have online P2P stopped.
Of course the MPAA would love that, they keep saying so every chance they get!
I thought the MPAA was organized crime...
What's Next? (Score:5, Insightful)
There may be no 'next'. Terrorism is timeless and can be milked forever.
And the fear of not being 'with us' sill squelch a lot of people that disagree.
Re:me thinks that RAND don't protest too much. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah - these days we have the 'terrorist ghost', earlier we had the 'communist ghost'.
I wonder what's next.
That would be the ghost of common sense. Pretty sure that poor bastard is dead these days.
Re:will you p (Score:3, Insightful)
RAND is not going to sell out just because one study was funded by the MPAA
I don't think it would be possible for RAND to sell out. That would imply that they had some objectivity or integrity to start with. I find RAND a good filter word. Just as when someone says 'beowulf' it's a sure sign that they don't know anything about cluster computing, when someone quotes a RAND report (or, worse, puts 'RAND Fellow' on their business card) it's fairly safe to assume that they don't have the faintest clue about economics.
Re:speaking of interchangeble terms (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the MPAA are a bunch of thugs.
RAND corporation, however, a sickening organization that profiteers by preparing "research papers" that deliberately misrepresents facts for the purpose of twisting social and economic policy to serve the agendas of big lobby groups, is the worst kind of organized crime; the kind that has government backing.
Re:me thinks that RAND don't protest too much. (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that the RAND Corporation has done actual research -- and you have done nothing --I see no substantial reason to doubt their conclusions. Even the MPA connection is fine by me, despite the submitter's insinuations.
You're right that there's plenty of real money to be made from bootlegging, and in that respect the research is probably right, but the conclusions that they come to based on their research are completely wrong.
The fallacy here is that RAND is equating online piracy with bootlegging, and concluding that since bootlegging helps the terrorists, online piracy helps the terrorists. The reality is that online piracy and bootlegging are completely at odds. People who download torrents generally don't buy bootlegs because they can get better quality and cheaper online. If anything, online piracy hurts the bootlegging industry.
People respond irrationally when they're afraid, and the MPA is hoping to take advantage of this to get Americans to believe that torrents 'helps the terrorists' even though a rational look at the situation suggests exactly the opposite. This is a cynical and calculated PR move in the MPA's ongoing campaign against piracy.
It probably is true that buying bootleg dvds supports terrorism, so if you're a patriotic American, you should download torrents instead of buying bootlegged copies!
In fact ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... the wide availability of (free or very inexpensive) digital downloads is killing off the demand for counterfeit DVDs.
We're doing our part to deprive the terrorists of their sources of financing.
Follow the money. (Score:5, Insightful)
Next reports from RAND:
Employees should agree that they are paid too much.
Rich people are wonderful leaders, and should be allowed to do anything they want.
The U.S. government's policy of killing people will bring peace.
The failures of banks in the United States were completely unforeseeable. When Warren Buffett predicted problems in 2002, he was talking about something else.
The U.S. government should buy more weapons. You never know when they will be needed.
Re:me thinks that RAND don't protest too much. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Governments make the crime, criminals commit it. Legalize drugs and they are no longer criminals. Problem solved.
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.
Assuming that the person was addicted to drugs, how is it different then someone stealing spark plugs and DVD players to fill a "legal" addiction such as gambling, alcohol and cigarettes? Is stealing wrong, yes, but would these people have to steal to get their addiction if these drugs were regulated in the same way alcohol and cigarettes are regulated rather then all-out banned?
It may not have destroyed your life, but making drugs legal/free/cheap/easier to get will be hell for so many others. In my town we just lost four teenagers in an car accident; they had been smoking salvia (which is legal) beforehand. If we are already struggling with the effects of "legal highs", how much worse will it get when we throw in currently illegal drugs into the mix?
But similarly, if they had been drinking the results would have been the same, but look at what prohibition did, it simply made ordinary people into criminals and let unscrupulous people get rich. People need to know what these drugs can do, yes, but they need a way to look at it without the tinted lenses of "This is brought to you by the counsel for the elimination of drugs", this is like trying to teach abstinence only, its a good idea, but not everyone is going to follow it, and when they don't, bad things happen.
I agree with you, ideally we should not have drugs. Fact: Drugs exist. Fact: Drugs can be easily bought even with all of our regulations on it Fact: Because of the prohibition of drugs, the money that comes from drugs goes to lawbreakers, these lawbreakers then use the money to fund more crime. Fact: Drugs can ruin lives, marriages, and relationships, but so can a lot of legal things, alcohol, gambling, and consumerism
People will always get drugs, they have since the dawn of time, the war on drugs though makes sure that the people who get drugs end up handing money to the wrong people, those that will use the money not to benefit themselves and others but rather use the money for violence. These people who get rich, usually end up screwing those who buy from them by poisoning the drugs they sell, the free market solution (take them to court and sue them for everything they own), doesn't work because what they were doing was illegal, so no one wins.
*Disclaimer, I do not use drugs, yes, I have seen the affects of what drugs do, and seen the affects of what legal things do (gambling, drinking, smoking, etc) too
Re:me thinks that RAND don't protest too much. (Score:3, Insightful)
Prohibition is, furthermore, completely ineffective. It is easier for an underage person to purchase marijuana, cocaine, or crystal meth than it is for them to purchase alcohol.
You mentioned that four teenagers in your town died after smoking salvia - now, can you affirmatively attribute the cause of the accident to salvia? Had they consumed said salvia within 30 minutes (the effective length of time salvia affects the brain) of operating the vehicle? Or were they, in fact, teenagers - a demographic, that even when they are completely sober have the highest rate of automobile fatalities of all the demographics.
The problem is some presumption that prohibition is actually helping - legalization would give the government more control over the distribution of these substances, not less - because it would obliterate the black market, lowering significantly the profit margins of those interested in distributing it (currently Al Qaeda, the Taliban, various other large criminal organizations). It's simple economics that the prohibition of something creates a very profitable market for whatever is being prohibited, and it is simply sociology that shows that the legal prohibition of something does not eliminate the market for that which is being prohibited.
Re:More insightful than funny (Score:3, Insightful)
While I don't necessarily agree with our current drug laws, I am definitely not pro-drug and anyone deciding they can enjoy them as a strictly victim-less crime is sorely mistaken. Musicians whose music glorifies violence, drug use and crime, then cry and whine about p2p sharing should have a special level of hell reserved for them.
RAND != credibility (Score:3, Insightful)
While RAND must be applauded for disclosing the funding participants, they still loose severely on credibility.
They are no longer an organization which I feel confident about as an organization providing policiticians or society in general with objective research.
As such they ought to be more serious about their research objectives and their reputation, by not allowing them to become puppets in disguise.
Their credibility is down the drain.
RAND research is no longer to be trusted.
Re:Blah blah Blah blah (Score:1, Insightful)
Its well known that lots of terrorists use petty crime like selling pirated movies to fund themselves.
As such you MIGHT fund terrorists when you buy that pirate DVD
Its well known that the media industry consumes lots of heroin and cocaine, which provides a huge income to particularly unpleasant terrorists.
As such buying a real DVD is WILL fund terrorists
Fortunately p2p provides you with a non-terrorist funding option