MPAA Piracy Survey - Junk Research 409
Cpt_Corelli writes "Alwayson network claims that a recent survey conducted by Online Testing Exchange (OTX) and distributed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is crap. The MPAA's summary of the survey claims, among other hard-to-believe assertions, that 'about one in four Internet users have downloaded a movie.' (It turns out this isn't true, but this is the factoid that was heard around the world the following week.) When did you stop trusting sponsored 'research'?"
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does movie downloading affect the economy of movie makers and all their dependancies in a major way?
Do those thieving, monopolizing, overcharging bastards deserve so much of our money?
How extensive should media creators' controls be over their 'art'?
And finally: Who actually gives a shit?
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does movie downloading affect the economy of movie makers and all their dependancies in a major way?
Doesn't matter. Deciding if something is wrong or right should not depend on how it effects the economy
Do those thieving, monopolizing, overcharging bastards deserve so much of our money?
Again, doesn't matter. If they own the rights, they can do whatever they want as long as they are not violating other laws.
How extensive should media creators' controls be over their 'art'?
Relevant! I'm a firm believer that if someone creates a work of art they should be able to charge whatever they want to people who want a reproduction or to view/listen to that art. Now art is defined pretty loosely here, especially considering some of the stuff that hits the theatres. If I don't want to pay $x to see a movie or purchase a CD, then I have that right. I do not have the right to have in my posession a reporduction of that right because I don't agree with the authors/copyright holders.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ideally, the law should codify what is right and wrong, in as many cases as possible (there will always be exceptions). So while it should not depend on the law, it should certainly be reflected by the law.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
NO!
The law should codify only what is necessary for people to get along together in one world. Ethics should not be even brought up; they are irrelevant, except in the practical case.
The law is not about what is right and wrong. Or even what is moral and immoral. It is about keeping society functioning. What makes it possible for you to walk around without worrying about the safety of your life, limb, and property. It makes sure you pay the costs of your actions, good or bad, right or wrong, legal or illegal. And none of those categories necessarily overlap.
The moment the law starts to be based on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' we start having trouble. Always
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nonsense. ALL law is ethics defined. We have an ethic against stealing, and a law against it. Now, you say that is only right and natural, but many Native American cultures had no sense of possesion, and therefore, NOTHING could be stolen. Our speed laws are morally derived from how fast you can go without being a danger to others "IN IDEAL CONDITIONS". Yes, this means you can rightfully get a ticket for doing 65 on the freeway in the fog, because you may not care for your life, but you are morally and legally required to not put others in danger. All law we have limits people from performing actions deemed hurtful to others which is ethics at it's very core. And I , for example COULD get a big stick and beat you till you saw it my way, but I am ethicly, and legally prevented from doing so, much to our benefit.
In conclusion in our society you, other than through participartion or lack there of, have no rights when it comes to what another has created. None. Fair use is a courtesty extended, nothing more. And while I like the idea of fair use, my only way to lobby for it is with what I choose to buy and not buy.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
'Moral' and 'ethics' are very dirty words. They can be defined and abused anyway someone with an agenda wants.
What is needed in the legal system is something like the seperation of church and state, but instead of theology, ideology is whats seperated. Ideology in this sense is like how the all the **AA's think that the world owes them everytime soembody hums a tune. It's stupid, and doesn't benefit society.
In short, only laws that serve to benefit the whole of society, like speed laws and laws against murder, theft, etc should be passes and laws that serve only a small minority at the inconvinience of society at large ought to never see the light of day.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
This is refuted in any Philosophy 101 course. Why is it illegal to drive without using your seatbelt? Is it wrong to not use your seatbelt? No, but it unfairly burdens the emergency response units in the community when some dumbass splatters his face on a tree because he didn't wear his seatbelt. Therefore, it is illegal to drive without using your seatbelt.
It is legal to lie to my mother but it is unethical. Why is this? Because laws do not and should not codify what is ethical. You cannot enforce morality. As the poster to which you respond accurately stated, laws reflect what is necessary to keep society from falling apart.
We can all lie to our mothers incessantly and have a functioning society, even though lying is unethical. If we all drove around without seatbelts, which certainly is not unethical, we would quickly send our emergency care services into chaos, therefore seat belt use is mandated by law.
Anyway, any Philosophy 101 course will give the very same argument, and it will very likely use the examples of lying to your mother and wearing a seatbelt.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in America, laws are built on rights. We have a right to life, therefore laws against murder. We have a right to personal property, therefore laws against stealing, etc. etc. One's morality is an individual concept. People of differing religions, for example, would have different ideas of what is morally right and wrong. Trying to codify such morals into laws would lead to very little freedom for individual choice for the individual, and it is such freedom which America has traditionally championed.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do these rights come from? From Government? No! The founding fathers of this country knew that these rights were given to humans by their creator. Our country is founded on principles given in the Bible, which is the foundation of our Judeo/Christian culture. So our basic laws are founded on the morality and principles articulated in the scriptures. The basic law there is simply: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
To translate this
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
It most certainly does in this case.
Again, doesn't matter. If they own the rights, they can do whatever they want as long as they are not violating other laws.
And again, it does in this case. Intellectual property rights are completely artificial constructs created for the purpose of providing economic benefit. From the US Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Copyright is a totally artificial construct designed to promote creative work by creating a government-imposed limited monopoly. It's not even enshrined as a "The government shall not" it's a congress can if they want to. This isn't murder or theft or restriction of free speach we're talking about here, we're talking about violation of temporary monopoly granted for the public good. The entire point is to provide an economic benefit so that creators will create. If a use does not affect that incentive, then it shouldn't be considered "wrong". The MPAA/RIAA has done it's best to confuse copyright with being an actual, natural right on the level of free speech or life and liberty. Apparently it's working.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue is we are in danger of reaching a point like we did around 1982 where virtually nobody purchased software for the Apple ][ any longer - they just copied it. It was commonly believed by people in the software industry that any new game would sell two copies - one on the east coast and one on the west coast and everyone would then get copies from the myriad BBS systems. Needless to say, nobody was much interested in producing new games (or anything else) for the Apple ][. Console games (cartridges - much harder to copy) were the thing then, until the PC Jr. failed and triggered another mini-crash.
Downloading software from a BBS in 1982 was difficult and time consuming. Downloading a song on the Internet is quick and painless. Downloading a movie is still not quick and painless for most of the Internet users, but it could get to be there.
Where are we when the artists and music producers reach the conclusion that making a CD just isn't worthwhile anymore and that $100 concert tickets are the only way to go. Paid appearances. Sponsorships like Brittny Spears with Pepsi?. Make the music "scarce" again and keep it out of the hands of the "common people" so it is worth something again.
That is already happening in China with like a 98% piracy rate. How long until it happens here if things continue as they are?
Re:Well... (Score:3)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, in my mind, economics is the one and only thing to consider in this matter. I cannot think of any other reason than money for media-producers to care who can view their product. Do they object to me downloading Finding Nemo and watching it becuase they don't like me? No, they object because they're not getting paid. The question is are media co
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps not. However, the problem with movie piracy (on the net, I'm not referring to selling $1 DVD copies of screeners...) to the MPAA is that it levels the playing field to be more fair towards the consumer. They have a business model I refer to as "open your mouth and close your eyes". You cannot get your money back if you're disatisfied unlike just about anything else you can buy. As such, movie makers can get away with sup-par movies and recieve money even though the consumer did not get the satisfaction he or she was paying for.
You're probably thinking I'm trying to justify downloading of movies. Frankly, it's not something I do. I have a substantial DVD collection but my computers only have a couple of rips I've downloaded. They are of movies I already have. I'm an artist. I make content for a living. I'm working on a movie right now. I don't want to lose my job because the movie wasn't successful, even if the blame could land squarely on piracy. However, there's something I have to think about: Content making is an art form, but it is also a business. We all paid to go see Matrix. We all paid to go see Star Wars, despite all the grumbling we did about it. If the movie I'm working on didn't generate the interest for people to run out and go see it, I can't say that piracy was the issue. The issue was that we did something wrong. Maybe the movie sucked, maybe we didn't market it well, maybe we asked too much for it. Yeah, maybe the result is a bunch of individuals did something wrong, that doesn't mean that we didn't either.
So what do I do? I have confidence it'll be a good movie. We're all working to make it that way. It's effort that is MUCH better spent than running ads to guilt people into paying for it. I want to make money from this, but I don't want to do it and leave people saying "man, what a rip-off."/i.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair point. However, at least in a live performance, you can shout 'boo'. In the case of a movie, your money is gone. Every single movie is advertised as the best movie ever made. Right. That's not false advertising. They give you a clever little teaser designed to hook you in and grab your money, and gee, it sure is convenient that they have the no refunds policy in place. Buy a crummy DVD? You're stuck with it.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, many theaters will give you your money back if you walk out in the first half or less and ask the manager to reimburse you.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not have the right to have in my posession a reporduction of that right because I don't agree with the authors/copyright holder
Actually, you do, provided you acquired it legally. Copyright law doesn't exist to guarantee anybody any specific method of making money from their creative works, it only exists to provide an opportunity. Historically, that opportunity to make money from creative works was by charging for distribution. But copyright law doesn't say "distribution".
Furthermore, copyright l
Hmmm (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't the whole justification for copyrights that its good for the economy?
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do those thieving, monopolizing, overcharging bastards deserve so much of our money?
Again, doesn't matter. If they own the rights, they can do whatever they want as long as they are not violating other laws.
Ah, but the problem is that the definition of those rights keeps changing. And not for the benifit of all parties involved. Copyright law in the US was intended to grant a temporary monopoly over an artists creations in order to give the artist an incentive to create. This seems fair and just to me
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine. But it's not quite that simple. Many people say, like you, that the creators gets control. An interesting question is, how much contro
Study Certification Agency (Score:4, Interesting)
RIAA Math School (Score:5, Funny)
just love statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just love statistics (Score:5, Informative)
Re:just love statistics (Score:5, Funny)
I'll believe a study... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, we'll later learn it was just to bolster a less obvious plan.
Re:just love statistics (Score:3)
OK, And? (Score:3, Interesting)
Somebody needs to slap them around and make them quit bitching.
But, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well to be fair, I bought a pirate copy of Catwoman in Hong Kong: my wife and watched and stopped half way through. What a pile of shit!
We would have gone and wasted our cash seeing it in the cinema (and walking out half way through) so in a sense piracy did cost the picture makers. But it saved us from wasting our time on some shit.
"I, Robot" now is the exact opposite. Having heard rumours etc about it we weren't going to see it. Having watched it and thoroughly enjoyed it on the pirate copy, again bought openly in a Hong Kong street market, we're planning to see it in the cinema. In that case piracy has had actually made the film maker's money!
Re:But, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
People hate buying shit.
People love buying things they enjoy, because they want to see more of them made.
Or, to put it another way, consumers aren't stupid, they understand the power of their own dollars. People are just as smart as (if not smarter than) the RIAA/MPAA bosses: they won't waste their cash until they know their cash won't be wasted.
Solution to the problem: create a product that people WANT TO SUPPORT and that people WANT MORE OF and it will sell well FOR THOSE REASONS.
Anything else is just attempted blackmail and theft from consumers' pockets.
Re:But, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
You lose!
You lose, because you're not smart enough to realize that things that don't have a physical presence (well, not a physical presence in the sense most people are used to), can have value.
What you fail to understand is the basic economic principle that ideas have value. Since a song is just someone's idea put into practice, the song has value. If you increase the number of copies of that song in circulation, but you don't increase the amount of money that is being paid to the artist*, then you are
Re:OK, And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OK, And? (Score:3, Insightful)
I admit it. (Score:4, Funny)
I was the one. I downloaded a movie from the internet.
It was a harried time, and temptation was great. In a weak moment, I succumbed.
I downloaded Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11".
I call BS (Score:3, Interesting)
I think at least one in four internet users use dial-up. At least. So to download a movie would take at least 50 hours on a good connection.
Demographics
So one in four is using Kazaa, BitTorrent, or similar, and knows about divx/xvid codecs, etc? Grandma on jetstream? It appears that a larger proportion of users don't even know not to open dodgy email attachments, or how to patch their OS, let alone find, download and play a movie.
When did you stop trusting sponsored 'research'? (Score:4, Insightful)
All sponsored research is not bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, there can be biased research that is not funded by insiders.... that simply is not a way to distinguish the good from the bad.
What is really proper, is to demand that all surveys 1) release the entire raw data set, 2) release the entire question sample, and 3) all other information so it can be replicated and peer reviewed.
This is standard fare in other industries, and most legitimate survey takers already do it.
The better test to detect bogus research, is not to ask who paid for it, but to ask if they are complying with the above criteria.
Re:All sponsored research is not bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Sponsored research is not automatically bad.... there are a number of areas where interest is not widespread beyond the industry players in that industry, so they are the only ones who will foot the bill.
Sure, sort of like the IT industry, where the only *studies* done are done at the behest of the ITAA. Surprisingly, every study *released* says exactly what the industry wants Congress to hear. These are the same studies that claimed the US faced a huge shortage of IT workers while they were being laid
Re:When did you stop trusting sponsored 'research' (Score:4, Informative)
From here: [internetnews.com]
Upholding a lower court decision issued in April of 2003, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled P2P technology is legal even if the software itself is used for illegal purposes.
"The technology has numerous other uses, significantly reducing the distribution costs of public domain and permissively shared art and speech, as well as reducing the centralized control of that distribution," Judge Sidney R. Thomas wrote in a unanimous opinion.
The three-judge panel acknowledged that copyright violations do occur on the decentralized P2P networks, but the companies owning and distributing the enabling software cannot be held liable for the infringements.
That's not the best idea (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with another response to your post. Someone has to pay for research, and sometimes an impartial study just isn't feasible because impartial people have no stake or interest in the outcome.
For instance, I'm personally in a group that has a particular interest in reducing the amount of light pollution that's produced by populated areas. There's little or no existing interest outside of our own group. About the only way we'd be able to get th
public domain movies (Score:5, Informative)
"Stop" trusting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, seriously, for the slightly less-paranoid... It's always a good idea to find out, at the very least,
a.)Who payed for the research
b.)Who they work for/own stock in/represent/want you to vote for.
While most of the time, a research group is not going to make up numbers out of whole cloth, writing the questions in a way that could influence the result is bound to happen most of the time.
Not everyone knows this (Score:4, Insightful)
I blame the media more than the education system. Yes, it would be nice if we could get people to get out of the school system with the ability to cut through rhetoric better than they do, but let's fully blame the media here. Just as on /. we have all come to realize how often studies are distorted by sponsorship money, journalists must know this too. They have been exposed to too many examples of this not to know to check for who sponsored the study, etc. So why don't the news articles point out the flaws in the studies? If they did that, people reading them would be fortified in their knowledge.
Of course, I can think of several reasons why journalists don't do this most of the time: Lack of time before deadline to do the research / laziness / the need to keep the sponsors of those studies happy so that they will cooperate with the journalists next time, and so on. Still, it is disheartening.
Re:"Stop" trusting? (Score:5, Insightful)
"wheres the money ?"
this question will help you solve most of the problems you come across in life.
Re:"Stop" trusting? (Score:5, Interesting)
c) what personal agenda they may or may not be pushing.
Here's an example of c) in action. Back in the '80's a group of scientists used a very in-depth, well-funded study to 'prove' that women in their 20's had healthier babies than women in their teens, and therefore teen pregnancy was a Bad Thing(TM). Not for any 'moral' reason, mind you, but because it was clear that becoming pregnant as a teenager put your child at unnecessary risk, when you could wait until your 20's and avoid that risk.
This research was so well-received by both the left and the right that it held for nearly two decades without being disputed. In fact, it wasn't disproven until last year.
You see, it turns out that the researchers in this case had a strong interest in proving that teen pregnancy was a bad thing, because they personally thought that teen girls having sex was morally reprehensible. In order to cook their results they decided not to control for one very important factor: pre-natal care. That's right, they deliberately did not control for pre-natal care. It's a well-known fact that women in their twenties are far more likely to plan their pregnancies than women in their teens, and so tend to have much better pre-natal care, so this action wasn't accidental but deliberate.
What happens when you control for pre-natal care? What happens is that you piss off a lot of morally conservative people, because controlling for pre-natal care shows that the healthiest babies in the world are born to women between the ages of *13 and 17*. Not exactly something you want to advertise if you're one of the folks screaming about the 'evils' of teen sex.
Needless to say the study was blasted. Not the science of it, which was solid, but on 'moral' grounds, with people claiming it should never have been done in the first place.
So you not only have to ask "who paid for the research" and "who do the researchers work for", but also "do they have a personal agenda they're trying to foist on others using pseudo-science"?
Max
Re:"Stop" trusting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Stop" trusting? (Score:5, Informative)
The second study was published in the August 1, 2001 edition of the American Journal of Epidemiology. The primary scientist of record is Dr. Ralitza V. Gueorguieva from Yale University.
Here's an excerpt from the summary of this study, reported in an August 8, 2001 Yahoo news article:
"The report notes that while children of teen moms are significantly more likely to have educational disabilities overall, they are no more likely to have problems when the mother's education, marital status, income and race are taken into account.
In fact, these youngsters may be less likely to have physical handicaps and academic problems than children of older moms, the researchers report.
``Children of teenage mothers are at higher risk for disabilities in kindergarten, but this increased risk appears to be due not to a biological effect of the young age of the mother per se, but to the confounding influences of associated sociodemographic and/or environmental factors,'' according to Dr. Ralitza V. Gueorguieva from Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues.
To investigate whether young maternal age increased the risk of academic difficulties, the investigators examined the school records of more than 339,000 children who entered a kindergarten class in Florida between 1992 and 1994.
Children of teenage mothers were significantly more likely to have lower IQ scores and more academic problems, the report indicates. But when social and economic factors were accounted for, teenage motherhood appeared to be protective in certain ways.
For instance, children of mothers aged 11 to 17 had a significantly lower risk of academic problems and children of 18- and 19-year-old mothers also had a lower risk of learning disabilities. On the other hand, children whose mothers were age 36 or older were more likely to be physically impaired or have academic problems, when social and environmental factors were considered.
According to the report, a mother's education had the greatest impact on a child's educational achievement. A mother's marital status, income and race also influenced the child's academic abilities.
``There is some evidence that a large number of children of teenage mothers show disabilities or academic problems not because of the effect of having a teenage mother per se but because of the confounding influences of other factors,'' Gueorguieva and colleagues write."
Why do I call this the second study, supporting the first (which I can't find online)? Because:
"The findings support previous research suggesting that some of the negative consequences of teen motherhood may be mediated by social and economic factors."
The study here doesn't specifically address pre-natal care, whereas the original did. The authors of the original study had some trouble trying to account for a lack of control over prenatal care in the '80's study they disputed when it's been well known since the early 70's that prenatal care is one of THE most important factors in determining the health of a baby. You just don't 'forget' to account for prenatal care.
Don't believe me? Type in "prenatal care" and "teen pregnancy" into Yahoo or Google and watch the web sites and papers pop up, all telling you just how vital prenatal care is and how critical it is to the health of your baby. A scientist doing research on the subject is about as likely to 'overlook' prenatal care as a mechanic looking to solve car trouble is going to miss the fact that the car has four flats.
I wish I could find a link to the original study I was speaking of, but I can't, at least not in the 15 or so minutes I spent searching. I did find this, however, and this study was done just months after the one I was speaking of (which is why they refer to the study in their summary).
Max
Re:"Stop" trusting? (Score:3, Interesting)
Back to the nominal topic -- recently I received a survey from a normally-reputable consumer survey company (I've been doing their surveys for 27+ years, so I'm very familiar with them) whi
To be fair... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Some people say... (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, it's great fun to point out how the statistics are a lie, but what if they are true?
In a land with a government that rules by the people and for the people, is it really a good idea to condemn 1/4 of your population? At what point does the will of the people enter into the equation? Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant, but whether it's the will of the people or not is the key question.
So, if the statistics are lie, then great, the MPAA is wrong.
If they're the truth, then the MPAA is sti
Who else to trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who else to trust? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who else to trust? (Score:3, Interesting)
One examples: "We'll offer you $60 to show up and take the 45 minute survey. What radion stations do you listen to?" If I answer KDVS [kdvs.org], the local college station they say
Tobacco sponsored research did it for me. (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, after research like that, I'd better take up smoking Winstons!
Re:Tobacco sponsored research did it for me. (Score:3, Funny)
Tim
Re:Tobacco sponsored research did it for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
But that is the ad's intent. The point is not about the truth of the research, it's about the presentation. What do "doctors" who smoke have to do with the best/healthiest/coolest brand of cigarettes? Nothing really, but the connection Winston was trying to make is so obvious I can't believe you missed it - if doctors smoke them, they must be the right brand to smoke.
Nothing is wrong with the statement in itself. The research may have been repeatable and the methodology may be sound. Hell, they may have surveyed every doctor on the planet! None of that matters, because the way the statistic is used is the problem. It is intentionally misleading to a casual reader in order to promote Winston's best interests.
Movie Quality (Score:4, Insightful)
Along with half movies, bogus titles, viruses, poor quality, people that let you download and kill it after a few minutes it's just not worth it.
Mp3's were popular to download even on dialup because it took minutes to download vs hours or even days to obtain a movie.
As SBC and Verizon deploy FTTH/P then you'll see the rehtoric cranked up as it would then take a 15Mbit line a few minutes to get a whole movie.
Even so, the MPAA needs to get a clue. I can count more than 20 movies this year I have gone to see that I considered afterwards good enough for video. With the exception of the Last Samurai, iRobot, and a few others I feel ripped off. They need to quit previewing all the good parts in the movies and begin to come up with quality work.
Re:Movie Quality (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell yeah! For my whole marriage I've been telling my wife the TV is a waste of time. Then one day, sitting there with hundreds of channels, she just got sick of it. The kids didn't know what to do without the TV on, they had forgotten how to play. And she couldn't find anything worthwhile to watch.
So she unplugged the tv, took it outside and stuck it in the dumpster (not quite as dramatic as me throwing a TV in the dumpster from a third story balcony, but still nice to see). She hasn't watched TV in
Errors (Score:5, Funny)
When I followed one of the links that advertises the survey results, the page loaded with javascript errors
"done
I didn't realize that the IE javascript engine could also filter for misleading biased survey scams.
I would think... (Score:4, Interesting)
claims like this would work against them. They should be trying to convince the public that they're only against this "band" of pirates which is trying to harm the innocent population and ofcourse CHILDREN by their misdeeds.
By claiming that 1 in 4 internet users have committed a "crime", they'll (hopefully) make the Avg Joe realize that the "filthy" pirates are actually the next door Avg Smith or even the beautiful chick across the street being chased down and convicted in court.
About 41% of all statistics are made up. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yes, and... (Score:5, Funny)
1 in 4 (Score:4, Insightful)
Because internet users NEVER lie. (Score:5, Interesting)
If a survey will pay you $10 if you're a beekeeper and answer beekeeping questions, many people will claim to be beekeepers. Who's stopping them?
MPAA math (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe the MPAA is trying RIAA-style FUD-math?
They didn't really mean that 1 in 4 people had downloaded a 700MB divx/xvid movie, but that since more users have broadband now, these "super-users" can rightly be counted as 24X normal users. :)
--
skewed (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, right. Next, you'll be telling me that classes on copyright law sponsored by the RIAA are one-sided.
MPAA lawsuits are vulnerable to protests (Score:3, Interesting)
All we have to do to stop these lawsuits by the RIAA is organize to protest the lawsuits. Unlike the music business, much of the movie business is vulnerable to protests and grassroots activism. THis is because a lot of the money from movies is derived from box office receipts at the multiplex cinemas, which pack in thousands of people each day. Thus, their main revenue source is quite concentrated. A few well-placed protest signs will lose them money every day. Typically, these multiplexes are on a freeway offramp. Two or three good signs placed strategically with a good message will cost them money.
See the freeway blogger at http://www.freewayblogger.com [freewayblogger.com] for more ideas on this technique....
Re:MPAA lawsuits are vulnerable to protests (Score:3)
Oh, Ok I forget, this is slashdot. Its OK to infringe on the RIAAs or the MPAAs copyright, but theres hell to pay for people infringing the copyright of software under the GPL.
i like the stat (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:i like the stat (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, you're assuming that the USA is a democracy, which it isn't; decisions are not made to please the majority of the population. To see this, consider speed limits (which far more than 50% of the US population that I have observed do not follow). When the way in which your country is being governed does no
I look at file sharing like this: (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, we have a similar situation. The People either do not care about patent and/or copyright violations, or are actively against them. The only people who advocate our current patent and copyright catastrophies are those trying to make a quick buck. (I throw both patents and copyrights out there, because those running linux kernels right now who read slashdot know there are patent violations in the kernel, yet are using it anyway, and I'd say 99% of us will continue to do so until they pry the keyboards from our cold dead fingers, no matter who thinks they own it. And for copyrights, go ahead and delete all that porn on your harddrives, because odds are very good you do not own the rights to have it. No? Didn't think so. Same goes for most music, ebooks, whatever.)
The point is, the People have spoken on this issue. They have said, "Copyrights and patents have the sole purpose of protecting the little guy from the big guy. Not the big guy from the next big guy and not the big guy from the little guy. It's purpose is not to help big companies enforce a monopoly on consumers."
Any politician who advocates persecution of fileswapping or using patents by the people(that's the purpose of having a patent system at all) does not deserve his office. Don't vote for them. Because they are not listening to what the People are saying.
That seems a bit binary to me (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, I have written the Representative and Senators who represent me in Congress, advocating for a reform of intellectual property laws so that big companies like Disney can't steamroll anyone who attempts to impose a more rational system. But I also happen to live in California, where a huge slice of the population makes its living off of intellectual property in one way or another. The movie, music, and computer industries all depend on intellectual property for their survival.
The reaction from my representatives in Congress has been a fairly uniform, "We want to respond to new technologies in a way that allows for innovation but respects intellectual property laws." Basically they are concerned that if IP laws are messed with, the bread and butter for their constituents will vanish. It's about them wanting to stay in office, but it's also about them looking out for the economic interests of California.
You can say what you want about people wanting to make a quick buck, but as a small business owner I can categorically say that business is very difficult. It's never easy, and there is always someone ready to take over your market and eat your lunch if you're not careful. That's the nature of free enterprise. When you're in business, you seek every legal advantage you can get, because if you don't, you might not survive. Copyrights and patents do not "have the sole purpose of protecting the little guy from the big guy," or "the big guy from the little guy." They are intended to encourage innovation and spur the economy, while providing for long-term benefits to society.
It seems to me that the goal of all who would like to see the current imbalances in copyright and patent law redressed should be to show Congress and the people at large how current laws favor powerful, entrenched, and (this is vitally important) non-innovative players in the market. We need to show how if we do not change our IP laws, we will collectively be at an economic disadvantage because we have squelched innovation.
If you want to take on big, vested interests, you need to beat them at their own game. You need to show legislators and regular people (I get nervous any time anyone uses the term "The People" because it implies that in a country as large and diverse as the United States somehow there are only two camps - the forces of Evil, and The People) that it makes economic sense to reform intellectual property laws.
p.s. - "Back in the good 'ol days" (1920), the Prohibition Act came into being after more than 27 years [ohio-state.edu] of concerted grassroots political effort. Congress didn't just up and decide to enact Prohibition.
Re:That seems a bit binary to me (Score:4, Insightful)
And it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that grass roots activism can be just as fucked in the head as bought-and-paid-for lawmaking.
Max
Statistics.. (Score:3, Funny)
On a serious note, 49% of Americans use dial-up. Do you think they'd even consider downloading a movie?
I say we all "sponsor a dial-up user", for ever movie they don't download, we download 2!
Re:Statistics.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Same kinda thing we're yelling at the MPAA/RIAA/whoever about.
Shock therapy not used in movie downloading study (Score:4, Informative)
CC.
Trusting sponsored research (Score:3, Informative)
But 1 in 4 internet users download movies? Are we counting freely-distributed porn films or not? If so, that number is a lot higher. If not, it's a really low number.
Re:Trusting sponsored research (Score:4, Interesting)
You certainly don't have a clue. The margin for those living off of government grants is a) reputation, and b) *the ability to get future grants*. It can be very dangerous to do a study which contradicts government policy; it might be impossible from that point on to get any funding at all.
My wife is a scientist, living off of government grants. I have an insider's view on the process (not to mention my own time with government) and it isn't the clean, unbiased pursuit of science that you seem to claim.
Max
Viewing Atom Films makes you a criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point (Score:3, Interesting)
Depending on the way they ask the question, this might have gotten her lumped in with people downloading movies, because she did technically download part of a movie.
The thing was that it was (a) Not the whole movie (b) entirely legal.
Now lets say 10% of all teens do this...Might that inflate the stats just a bit?
Flops and Sardine Cans (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead what they like to do is include the stats for the amount of geeks downloading LOTR, then combine it with the box office busts like Catwoman and say "See! People aren't seeing movies because they can just download it." They conveniently forget the fact that watching your cat lick herself while taking a piss in the litter box is more entertaining than watching Catwoman. Hopefully someone in congress will wise up to the RIAA and MPAA games and give them a swift kick in the caboose.
Symbiotic relationship (Score:3, Insightful)
And it goes without saying that sponsored researchers exist solely to issue press releases.
As long as there is a press, there will be sponsored research, and vice versa.
Accuracy is no longer enforced (Score:5, Insightful)
This is most obvious when you watch tv commercials. Ten or more years ago, a "dramatization" would more accurately reflect reality: a cleaning solution or drug visually-demonstrated to eradicate dirt or infection would always leave a few traces behind in the animation. Now, every demonstration of every product shows 100% success. Just yesterday I saw a commercial during the Olympics showing an American pickup truck towing a tractor trailer loaded with a half-dozen vehicles. Completely ludicrous and impossible, but they get away with it with a fleeing "dramatization" tag, knowing full well most peoples' attention spans skip over the fine print. And speaking of fine print, they slap the tiniest disclaimers on advertisements for the shortest periods of time - virtually impossible to read. Who enforces this stuff and why aren't they doing their job?
Nobody seems to care so corporations become more and more cavalier and bold about misrepresenting reality and misleading the populace.
Advertising has always been the art of lying, but in this new dawn of consumerism, corporate interests have the mantra that they don't have to spew anything that's accurate, factual or close to reality if they have the power and resources to repeat their misleading message in perpetuity - that act in itself, according to them, affirms the integrity of their claims. See: GW Bush, MPAA, RIA, SCO, etc.
Now maybe at some point we'll reach critical mass with this BS, and the public will begin to trust nobody? Perhaps in another ten years substance and truth will be popular again? Who knows.
I suggest rather than spit into the wind of corporate america by trying to refute the never-ending stream of inaccurate propaganda, we jump on the bandwagon and hasten the eventual flashpoint of total media & corporate cynacism.
Everyone here should come up with at least one completely ridiculous "fact" or "figure" and do their best to propagate it. Maybe if enough of us pee into the already polluted river of corporate communication we can get the public to begin to seek more pure sources?
What about the twinkie (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about the twinkie (Score:3, Funny)
Missing the Point (Score:3, Insightful)
The remark about "trusting sponsored 'research'" misses the point. Real scientists use good methodology to help them keep their bias from influencing the outcome of research. The problem which often comes up in research that is funded to prove a point is that the methodology is bad, and anyone with a good science background should be pointing out that methodology is what matters.
Of course there is some chance that researchers who are out to prove a specific position might fabricate data, but I don't think this is the biggest part of the problem surrounding biased research.
Bias and reputation of the researchers and sponsors are grounds for suspicion; But, to really impeach a study, you must either demonstrate that the methodology is bad or that the data are fabricated. Science is not a popularity contest.
The article does talk about the problems with the methods used in the study, but the SlashDot quote referencing the article seems to be about the fact that the research is "sponsored" by a bad company. In science, it takes more than that to show a study to be unsound.
Adrian
When did you stop trusting sponsored 'research'? (Score:5, Interesting)
When did you stop trusting sponsored 'research'?
When I started doing it.
Actually, as I started my Ph.D., someone I knew completed his. At the party we held after his defense, he said something that has stuck with me:
True story.I'm really starting to hate this stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, when I walk into the movie theater tonight(leaving in about 10min here), I will see, amonth the previews, a commercial asking me to stop movie piracy! I'm being told to stop stealing movies after I paid $9(plus a ~500% markup on the food) to see one!
That's just stupid and insulting. I don't pay to go get insulted... therefore it makes me just want to hop online and watch the movie without the insults.
Anyway...
Sponsored research? (Score:3, Insightful)
Before a single question was asked!
37 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds (Score:3, Interesting)
Also "24 percent of respondents reported that they had downloaded a movie online".
The 24% includes perfectly free-to-download stuff shorts like http://pocketmovies.net/ [pocketmovies.net] and http://www.archive.org/movies/prelinger.php [archive.org]
The 37%, being 'full length' is presumably meant to imply Hollywood releases, but can still include public domain stuff like the Prelinger material linked above, which includes full length movies.
It does piss me off that the MPA tries to associate every movie download as being of their copyrighted property; that's not so.
why would the MPAA lie about that? (Score:4, Interesting)
So why would the MPAA lie about this? To purposely make themselves look less credible?
I stopped trusting sponsored research (Score:3, Interesting)
It's an average (Score:3, Interesting)
That's really not that hard to believe, considering they're talking about an average. The average human being is (roughly) 1/2 male and 1/2 female. All it takes for this "hard-to-believe assertion" to be true is for one user in a hundred to have downloaded 400 movies, something which I wholeheartedly believe from firsthand experience.
Trusting company paid information (Score:3, Interesting)
When did you stop trusting sponsored 'research'?
Ooh, I know this one! Is it when Dr. Nancy Olivieri [google.com] tested a drug on patients only to find out it may actually be hamful? After the doctor decided to tell the patients the risks, a gag order was issued by the company funding the experiment.