Ars Examines Outlandish "Lost To Piracy" Claims and Figures 380
Nom du Keyboard writes "For years the figures of $200 billion and 750,000 jobs lost to intellectual property piracy have been bandied about, usually as a cudgel to demand ever more overbearing copyright laws with the intent of diminishing of both Fair Use and the Public Domain. Now ARS Technica takes a look into origin and validity these figures and finds far less than the proponents of them might wish."
"Lost" to piracy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're losing sales. That's pretty valuable to somebody trying to make a living off of it.
Besides, when has the Slashdot community ever avoided using the phrase "stolen GPL code" even though you can't steal code? People seem to split hairs only when it suits their agendas...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People used to pirate stuff they'd pay for. The lastest stuff is so shitty that no sane person would pay for it! Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's crappy, why is getting pirated? That doesn't make sense.
Re:"Lost" to piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
because while it isn't worth money to those people it is just above a youtube video of someone lighting their farts and staring at the wall, in that order.
They wouldn't spend their money on it even if there was no piracy is all it means.
How is this concept so very very very hard for certain people to understand.
Also- downloading a movie off TPB is less effort than going to the video rental place.
Simple as that.
Even if the video rental place halved their prices it would still be more effort to go there.
Hell I have no problem paying a subscription- I pay for a rapidshare account. It's convenience that matters to me and TPB is very very convenient for people. And since the rights holders seem to be represented by idiots who didn't jump in faster services like TPB and Rapidshare got there first and are now well dug in.
Re:"Lost" to piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody's asking them to pay. But if they were asked to pay they'd simply decline to watch. simple as that.
Value: ~Zero
Cost: ~Zero
Result: Watch
Value: ~Zero
Cost: ~$9.99!
Result: Goes and watches someone light their farts on youtube.
Simple enough for an arts student to understand.
How is this concept so very very very hard for certain people to understand?
Re:"Lost" to piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
show me where on TPB they get asked to pay.
The question was about lost sales. the point was there were no lost sales because if they had to pay to view then they simply wouldn't view.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Lost" to piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'm going to take it and derive enjoyment from it, but it's not good so I won't pay for it."
If one cannot return a shitty movie, he or she's going to find another means to review its value.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost no video on YouTube is worth paying for. But I watch them anyway.
Almost no TV show is worth paying for, but I watch them anyway.
I listen to a lot of music on the radio. Very little of it is worth paying for.
I don't see where that is unethical in any way. Please explain where I've gone off the straight and now moral path.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
exactly!
Why would I bother pirating half life2? I can get it from steam fairly cheap and I don't have to worry about viruses and it's a hell of a lot faster than downloading it from a wares site.
sure some people still do but from my own experience of when I simply didn't have a credit card that's still a matter of convenience where going out and getting a credit card to conduct business with steam took more effort than going to the crack site. now I have a card going to steam is more appealing.
Re:"Lost" to piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's crappy, why is getting pirated? That doesn't make sense.
Because civil disobedience is an excellent way to show your disapproval of bad business models.
Re:"Lost" to piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
If you honestly believe people are pirating games, movies, and music as a form of "civil disobedience" to stick it to the man, I don't know what to say. It's the same tired cultural revolution argument that's been trotted out for over a decade. The simpler truth is that human beings are selfish by nature, and if there's an easy way to get something for free without repercussion, they'll latch onto it and justify it any number of ways. Your argument, for instance, is a mental exercise in portraying other people as the bad guy, even though you're the one ripping off the artist. It's a huge leap, but people make it all the time so they don't feel like they're doing something wrong.
Besides, what "bad business model" are you referring to? The one where you make something and try to sell it? The industries have already adopted internet distribution models through iTunes, Steam, and so forth. What more do you want?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Consumer.
You know...the one who decides whether the goods are worth the amount being asked???
That's how the free market works. If you charge too much and people won't pay what you are asking, then you lower your price or go out of business.
Only markets, where the price is fixed through conspiracy of the sellers, is this not true. (i.e. Gas, Movies, Music, etc)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By pirating it, I'm attempting to determine its worth.
If I determine that it is worth the asking price, I purchase it.
If I don't purchase it, by this policy, I am proving its lack of worth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what part of Deliberate, open, and peaceful violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, military or police orders, or other governmental directives are you having trouble understanding?
Re: (Score:2)
Its like baseball cards for kids these days. They just have to have all the music whether it is good or not. Reminds me of a guy in Junior High that we called ISO boy...he would download and burn anything he could find...not matter what it was.
Re:"Lost" to piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's crappy, why is getting pirated? That doesn't make sense.
Probably for the same reason as I read the crappy free daily news sheets they hand out on the subway: they're free, they pass some time, and if they bore me I can throw them over my shoulder without a second thought. Nothing lost, nothing gained.
Oh, and nobody loses a sale :-)
Re:"Lost" to piracy - Major Fallacy Here! (Score:5, Insightful)
You make the fallacy of equating every pirated instance to a lost sale. Many songs are copied that would never be bought otherwise, and the same applies to movies and software. People would simply go without at the price demanded for a legal sale, or find a cheaper alternative (listen less, FOSS, etc.). So to say that sales are lost to piracy is no more valid than flogging the figures of $200B and 750,000 jobs.
It's not that simple of an equation (Score:5, Insightful)
You're losing sales.
Let's go through the logic of that shall we?
Seems to make sense at first.
Problem with that logic is that it typically implies that every instance of copying equals an instance of lost sales which is clearly and demonstrably not true. Someone who cannot afford the authorized copy will never purchase it so that cannot be a lost sale. Someone who is unwilling to pay the price being asked is likewise never going to be a lost sale. Ergo the only population in question is those who are able and willing to pay the price being asked but decide to pirate anyway. This is necessarily a smaller population.
What really is being claimed is that copyright infringement cannibalizes a percentage of sales that otherwise *may* have come to the copyright holder. For digital works, the marginal cost of a copy is essentially zero so while the copyright holder may lose a sale, he/she/it doesn't lose any cash since they have not lost an asset they owned. It might induce a higher fixed cost per unit since fewer units are sold and the cost cannot be amortized over as many units. A problem to be sure but a very different issue.
It also implies that unauthorized copying never results in purchases of authorized merchandise. It is relatively easy to find examples of products where bootleg/unauthorized copies actually helped drive the popularity of the product to the point where authorized copy sales increase.
You'll notice the word theft never was mentioned because it isn't theft. This doesn't make the copyright infringement any more moral or legal but it does make it a different situation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So one industry is dying because of social attitude changes, while the money that industry lost was just spent on another part of the market which thanks to piracy is now booming and employeeing citizens.
Re:"Lost" to piracy (Score:4, Funny)
I may have to renegotiate the terms of my loan...
Anyone else find it humorous... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anyone else find it humorous... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps more importantly, both numbers are seemingly decades old, gaining a patina of currency and credibility by virtue of having been laundered through a relay race of respectable sources, even as their origin recedes into the mists. That's especially significant, because these numbers are always invoked as proof that the piracy problem is still dire--that everything we've done to step up international enforcement of intellectual property laws has been in vain. But of course, if you simply recycle the same numbers from 15 and 20 years ago--remember that IACC's 2005 publications still cite that 1995 congressional testimony, from which it seems safe to infer that they have no more recent source--then it will necessarily seem as though no ground has been gained.
In other words, those standing to benefit are perpetuating the reuse of old numbers so to get ever more beneficial measures passed. Nice to see it stated, but I can't see anyone with clout (e.g. members of congress/their aides) actually reading this.
Actual losses are zero (Score:4, Insightful)
As I've said before, the actual losses are zero. An opportunity cost only exists when an opportunity exists in the first place. Nobody is crying foul that horse and buggy makers are out thousands of jobs and dollars due to the advent of cars.
To content industry: the advent of the internet results in consumer p2p. It cannot be stopped. Deal with it. Do so by competing against it, not legislating against it.
bad analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bad analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's also where the would-be bit salesmen are full of it, too. The music industry has lost sales to independant labels and artists (most of whom WANT their work shared and use P2P to its full advantage), lost sales due to a prolonged and severe boycott of their wares, yet blame any downturn in sales to copyright infringement.
They count each unpaid-for download as a lost sale, when in fact the vast, vast majority of these would NOT be sales even if copyright infringement were impossible. Peg Leg Pete downloads Madonna's "Lying Dickweeds", finds out it's utter dreck, and deletes it. Madonna's label screams "foul" and says a sale has been lost. College junior Blackbeard (who tries to make ends meet tending bar at night) downloads a copy of Photoshop that he could never afford, and Adobe counts it as a lost sale.
In short, everyone bandying these numbers around are bald faced liars.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't bother. this never seems to get through to people.
A download is not a lots sale.
A million downloads and getting 1 sale you wouldn't have got otherwise is a gain.
but these days business students get taught how to brown-nose not anything practical (unless you count that as practical)
Re:bad analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't demand the physical CD, DVD, etc., they demand the content. How that content is delivered is secondary.
Re: (Score:2)
How that content is delivered is secondary.
Obviously not for those who pirate...
Re: (Score:2)
How that content is delivered is secondary.
Obviously not for those who pirate...
It's still irrelevant. Those who pirate have been able to convince themselves that downloading an album is not as wrong (if they consider it wrong at all) as taking a CD from a music shop without paying. Fine. It's still not relevant to the fact that the music itself is the product of recording companies, regardless of how it is distributed.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not, and will never be morally wrong to take part in culture by consuming and sharing popular cultural expressions. If you think so, there is something seriously wrong with your sense of morallity.
In most countries outside the US it has never been illegal to copy cultural expressions for personal use, and it has not been and hopefully never will be considered morally wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, the current distribution model is retarded. It forces you to buy a bundle of things you may not want (wanting only THAT song that haunts you day and night) instead of exactly what you want. I stopped buying disks because of that.
iTunes Music Store.
No DRM? Amazon Music Store.
So you're done pirating then, right?
Re: (Score:2)
And some do it because the release is still months (or years) away locally.
Re:bad analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:bad analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
And me without mod points. Even RIAA execs have said they lost an entire generation of buyers because they didn't have a pay-to-download strategy soon enough. If they'd had *something* worthwhile, kids (now young adults) wouldn't think the best way to get your music is through BitTorrent.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess all that news about "format wars" between HD-DVD and Blue Ray was just some techy stuff nerds talked about that doesn't really matter.
I look at it as going green - I'm reducing my environmental footprint by not encouraging authors to make and sell plastic. It's also a shot at DRM and the organizations that back, and conveniently profit off it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You've completely forgotten about the cost to actually produce the content.
Studio time, recording equipment, instruments, etc. are not free.
Point being that you don't just pay for the plastic, you pay for the content and the cost to create that content.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See the battles of DeBeers vs. the artificial diamond makers
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An apt comparison, since as I recall, the only reason diamonds are expensive is because the supply (at least of "good" ones) is artificially restricted.
One does wonder... if the diamond supply were let freely into the marketplace, would there ever have been a big demand for cheap artificial stones, even at the industrial level?
(If the content had been marketed at realistic prices in the P2P environment in the first place, would there ever have been a big demand for illicit sources??)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong: the demand is vanishing. The astounding rise in consumer p2p reduces the demand for the physical CD, DVD, pay-for download, etc.
I'm surprised anyone considers this insightful. It's actually quite ridiculous since it should be clear that the product of recording companies is the music, not the method of distribution. Demand for music certainly is not vanishing.
Re:bad analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, basic economics will tell you that the quantity of something which is obtained for free has no bearing on the demand for a product. "Demand" means the shape of the whole curve, and that curve necessarily spikes far upward at the point where price reaches zero. That people download like crazy for free tells you absolutely nothing about what they would be doing if they had no choice but to pay money.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the group of people who would buy music at a price greater than zero (but don't because they can get it easily for free online) does not contain zero people--I think we would both say that this is probably true--then an opportunity cost does exi
Re:bad analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, but we can both be right.
Does piracy hurt demand? Most likely.
But would demand be higher, lower, or the same if piracy were somehow eliminated?
That is hard to say. My guess from what I know (and I realize this is just a guess) is that demand would still be going down even in the absence of piracy. That is to say, while piracy may be responsible for some losses, the industry would still be hurting even if it were not happening.
In any case, I think that the debate is irrelevant. You can no more stop your products from being pirated than you can stop your buildings from being rained on. If your roof leaks then you must fix the roof, not stop the rain. Likewise, businesses which are built on selling copyrighted material must come to terms with piracy and figure out ways to make money despite it. This is not really a good thing for us (I make my money in this area too!) but there's simply no way to make it stop.
Re:bad analogy (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the product of recording companies *IS* the CD and distribution since they did not produce the music, the musician did. Musicians are still making money off their performance, merchandise and numerous other venues including the internet through direct sales and/or straight out giving the tracks away that is not affected by piracy at all. You can't exactly pirate a live performance. Oh sure, you can record it, but that just isn't the same as being there. You can't pirate the experience.
Their business model is antiquated and they either have to adapt and reinvent themselves or die. I no longer support any artist using a major label. There are too many great indie artists as well as a few major bands that are embracing the new model. These numbers will only increase and the recording industry is scared....with good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
With the horse and buggy manufacturers it was transport people wanted.
Cars did it better.
With music companies it's entertainment people want.
P2P delivers it better than DRM loaded crap.
guess which will win.
Re:bad analogy (Score:4, Informative)
Authorized, paid downloads are rising:
"IFPI, an international music-industry association, found that 1.7 billion music tracks were downloaded worldwide in 2007, up 53 percent from the previous year. That number includes tracks from full-album downloads but excludes full-track downloads over the cellular airwaves directly to MP3-playing cellphones."
Name another business that grew 53% between 2006 and 2007.
Re: (Score:2)
As I've said before, the actual losses are zero. An opportunity cost only exists when an opportunity exists in the first place.
That might be a good point except for the fact that the opportunity does exist. You're probably assuming that all those who are inclined to steal would steal no matter what, therefore record labels aren't losing anything they had an opportunity to gain in the first place. Unfortunately, that assumption is wrong because the ease-of-use of the internet has made many people download content without paying who would otherwise not walk out of a retail store with an unpaid-for album. Therefore, the internet do
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Guy X buys software. Before buying (as he intended) software 2.0, he finds an opportunity and pirates it. How did piracy not cost anything?
Nobody is crying foul that horse and buggy makers are out thousands of jobs and dollars due to the advent of cars.
I bet they were back when the people that were, you know, affected, were alive. Or maybe even when their children were
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your whole argument relies on the assumption that there is no way to compete against P2P, but there is. Simply offer your own downloads just as free. Monetize it using a means other than consumer cost, such as advertising or subscription services on top of the content. It's been done for decades, since before the internet even existed with broadcasting.
Re: (Score:2)
And the richies arent willing to screw us over?
Congress awards 700$ billion in bailouts. AIG execs go shit-crazy on a almost half million$ luxury getaway... on our dime.
I'd have sympathy if it was individuals I was dealing with, but no.
If the richies get whatever they want, SO CAN I.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If everyone trades music, video, and software without paying for them, we will have heavily reduced funding for the creation of music and video, since the only potential income will be concerts/screenings/merchandising
You say that as if that would be a bad thing.
Scary, really (Score:4, Insightful)
Read TFA a few days ago... It's actually quite scary that lobbyists can throw around completely made up figures which convince lawmakers that we need law X for problem Y. There should be some kind of accountability for quoting random numbers...
Re:Scary, really (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scary, really (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a lie if you believe it.
If someone creates a think-tank for the express purpose of coming up with a white paper to support your position, and you don't technically know (or want to know) that the think-tank is intellectually dishonest about their report, then you can go in front of Congress and say, in good faith, that to the best of your knowledge what you say is true. And, as e
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Major Premise: Wikipedia demands more citation than the US Government
Minor Premise: No one really trusts what Wikipedia says
I'll leave the conclusion up to you.
Too important to be left to chance. (Score:2)
There should be some kind of accountability for quoting random numbers...
Unless you can provide a statistical analysis showing that the algorithm that producted those numbers was reliable, you really shouldn't sully the good name of "random numbers" with such back-of-the-haynes estimates.
Proctonomics? (Score:2)
but "random numbers" sounds so much nicer than rectally extracted data points.
How about "Proctonomics"?
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding, that's why we need to insure the 40 odd million of uninsured people that... wait wrong article. >.
Statistical abuse (Score:4, Interesting)
This sort of abuse of statistics happens all the time. Ars Technica's article was an excellent investigation into a very simple question - where do these numbers come from? It's scary how many government agencies just assumed they were true.
However the question is more interesting than the answer because no one has bothered to ask it before. Everyone just assumes that because the numbers come from government sources, they must be legitimate. This question should have been asked years ago.
Instead, as happens time and time again, this shows that if someone throws out a number with enough confidence, people will believe it. And once the number gets an air of legitimacy attached to it because of who's quoting it, no one will question it.
It's speaking something into being that didn't exist before, and enough people believe in it it is, in essence, true. Like the Hogfather in Terry Pratchett's Discworld series [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in a world where "think tanks" come up with their own bogus numbers to support whatever bullshit claim they want, why should we be surprised by any of this?? Industries which need to prop up their position do this crap all of the time.
Unfortunately, since peopl
Re: (Score:2)
What's more scary is lawmakers do this all the time and the sheep keep reelecting said lawmakers.
Not only that (Score:5, Funny)
so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:5, Interesting)
What makes you think that the NYT has more credibility than Ars? Personally, I see it the other way around: I'm far less prone to double-checking Ars figures than NYT figures. That's because when I did so in the past, Ars figures were a lot more accurate than NYT figures - at least when it came to tech issues.
Unless you mean that it would be nice for the MSM to pick it up. In which case I have news for you - the MSM hasn't been mainstream in about 2 years. Reader- and viewership numbers are down across the board for these entities, while numbers for blogs and radio talk shows are through the roof.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think that the NYT has more credibility than Ars? Personally, I see it the other way around: I'm far less prone to double-checking Ars figures than NYT figures. That's because when I did so in the past, Ars figures were a lot more accurate than NYT figures - at least when it came to tech issues.
It's not about credibility - It's about mass acceptance. You may trust Ars more than the NYT, but like nomadic said - We all knew those numbers were garbage. I can't point my mom to Ars and convince her of anything, but NYT, CNN, MSN, etc would all work just fine. And, despite your "MSM hasn't been mainstream in about 2 years" assertion, I'll need a citation before I believe that the bulk of Americans are getting their news or placing their trust more in blogs/talk shows rather than "mainstream" news outlets.
Won't somebody think of Joe Six-pack?!?
NYT has more credibility than Ars? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This story was incredibly well researched, and was one of the better Slashdot stories I've seen in a while.
Re:so? NYT REALLY? (Score:3)
Aside from mentioning that The National Enquirer broke both the John Edwards affair story and the Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy stories and was ridiculed for both why the mainstream media tried to spike them (both turned out true), just what constituted trusted media today -- an old name, or results?
Remember that the NYT also thinks that Barrack would make the best president.
Re: (Score:2)
statistically speaking (Score:5, Funny)
Copyright infringement != Theft (Score:3, Interesting)
I would estimate the number of jobs lost to intellectual property theft to be very little, and probably mostly due to patents.
Please stop grouping trademarks, patents, and copyrights together.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me wonder who really are the 'pirates'...
Re: (Score:2)
I said nothing in relation to whether that is true or not. It might be true.
I am complaining about grouping copyrights, patents, and trademarks into the ambiguous term "intellectual property", and then attributing losses to the "theft" of that. If they mean copyright infringement, why don't they say that?
Or could I blame a patent troll with IP theft as well?
Are people using "Xerox" to refer to a photocopier also guilty if I
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that mincing words is seen as a form of logical debate around here?
He brings it up because copyright infringement is different than theft. And, by pointing that out, he knows he'll be modded up and can try to kick off an argument starting with the fact that companies do not lose anything physical when their IP is copied illegally and ending with "Pirates == 0.5*(Robin Hood) + 0.5*(Luke Starwalker);".
Reminds me of Corporate "Good Will" (Score:2)
It's a ceiling estimate that exists somewhere in the infinite field of unfolding possibility... but it's usually not real in terms of the laws of this dimension.
Free Culture (Score:5, Informative)
Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture [free-culture.cc] goes into detail about this subject and comes to the conclusion that it's a load of bullshit made up by the media companies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've tried to read Free Culture a couple of times, and frankly, I have trouble with it. Lessig has a perfectly good style, and it is amazing just how odd people can get with property rights, but he makes a few very unjustified leaps of logic.
It's been a while since I last tried to read Lessig, but the one that really stands out in my mind was the declaration that enforcing the copyright expiry in the Act of Queen Anne (I think it was that act, anyway) in the 18th century made for a big change, because cult
I will believe it (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always said I'd believe the numbers when an insurance company pays out a policy for the amount, and/or a company writes off the loss to the IRS in tax filings. Generally speaking, I don't accept claims that are in a forum or format that would not be construed as testimony by a federal court. I have never heard anybody with any authority to speak for a US corporation, give a deposition under oath that makes the claims addressed in the article. It is as though they tell their shareholders, artists, performance rights organizations, and their own attorneys, different things from what they tell the FBI, the Customs agents, certain elements in the media, and lobbyists. I'm thinking there might actually be a crime here, but what do I know?
Interesting Article (Score:2)
It's turtles all the way down....
Reminds me of the quote: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics
- Samuel Clemens
Re: (Score:2)
47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Re: (Score:2)
Samuel Clemens
Benjamin Disraeli, and quite possibly someone else before Disraeli [wikipedia.org].</pedantic>
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more reminded of this: if you torture statistics long enough, they will confess to anything.
What about... (Score:3, Insightful)
all the jobs created by piracy? There's been how many software jobs created to come up with new anti-piracy software, DRM and the like. How many law suits have been thrown around bloating the salaries of overpaid lawyers and their ilk. Whole corporations such as the RIAA have been created to combat the travesties of pirates on the high webs.
How many jobs have been created due to the piracy itself. Napster has its roots in file sharing, if not for this company the likes of iTunes would not likely exist. Thepiratebay while not a piracy company would not be what it is right now with out some pirated content.
On the flip side of all of this imagine what the media would be like if artists did it for the art and not for the money. Movies such as Indiana Jones and the Crystal skull wouldn't exist. Aliens, wtf? Thats the kind of "art" that comes out of focus groups and market testing.
Re:What about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Whole corporations such as the RIAA have been created to combat the travesties of pirates on the high webs.
The RIAA is older than I am, and I'm a geezer.
An analog disk has a hard time with bass; the grooves would have to be way too deep. Fortunately, you can correct this in hardware using what is called an equalization curve [wikipedia.org]. It works somewhat like Dolby in reverse.
The record is recorded with the bass attenuated, and played back with the opposice curve (see the wikipedia article for detail).
In the beginning there was no standardization, but with high fidelity albums came the need for standardization. The RIAA was formed to standardize the various hardware companies' and recording companies' curves.
They didn't start suing their customers until this century.
What Kills Me is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Those numbers assume the rest of the galaxy isn't buying our movies because they pirate them. Damn those bastards on Alpha Centauri!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are they really claiming that 7% of the unemployed are from their industries?
It's actually more like 10% of the "unemployed", since the unemployment rate only counts people actively searching for a full-time job.
Money lost to piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people have to be so black-and-white on this issue? Pirates think everything should be free and argue like they're entitled to steal. Argue with them, and they point to illegal MediaSentry tactics and DRM as justification.
The truth is both sides are wrong. The MPAA, RIAA, ESA, etc. forge huge numbers of loss, not pointing to money that shifted to another market. Pirates aren't entitled to steal, but people who produce IP shouldn't be entitled to harass their customers either.
If you really want to solve the issue it is quite simple.
Put out a convenient product, instead of a DRM-ladened one, and people will but it. People will even accept DRM if it isn't too obnoxious. People are buying music and video legally over the internet. Digital distribution is the future and the big boys better embrace it rather than fight it.
Next, if you want to see were the real theft is, it isn't 12-year old girls downloading Rhianna albums, but rather rampant pirating in places like China and Russia, where pirates mass-produce your material and resell it illegally.
The US economy would be vastly better off if they received money from the IP they produced globally. The entire world watches our shows, movies, listens to our music, uses our software, plays our games, etc.
A real international force (unlike the UN) should be able to enforce sanctions against nations who do nothing to crack down on massive piracy. Allowing pirated DVDs to be sold on the street is not acceptable.
Next, consumers in China often have less money to spend than their US counterparts (though that may change) and they are used to cheap prices on pirate goods.
The MPAA should HIRE the guys doing the best bootleg releases over there to turn around quick, legal, localized releases and sell them cheap to compete with the pirate market.
The sad thing is that pirate releases are sometimes vastly more convenient, and better than commercial releases. Check out pirate Windows XP CDs loaded with new drivers, pre-loaded apps, simpler installers, etc.
Loss: $79.99 at least (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that you didn't RTFA did you? This was addressed, 79.99 is not the correct figure either.
Here is a hint - Where did that 79.99 go instead?
T
Production (Score:2)
This isn't about protecting intellectual property it is about protecting the flow of money. Of course I don't really think this is
200 billions? Is that in pre-WW2 deutschmark? (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand (Score:4, Funny)
How many lawyer jobs did it create? What about engineers working on DRM and other antipiracy methods? And the guys that make the trailers that say copying movies is stealing, etc, etc. Where would they all be without pirates?
They've done this before... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's been proven multiple times that if you look at actual downloads versus purchases, the loss is indistinguishable from 0. I see the value in having multiple studies for the same claim, but it does make it less interesting for the informed.
Also it's important to note that any figures from anti-piracy groups will have two assinine assumptions:
1) Every downloaded song WOULD have equaled one purchased CD. No one ever buys individual songs from the outlets available to them, and no one EVER EVER buys a CD and listens to more than one song. (I suppose there's some truth that most albums have at most one song worth listening to.)
2) Every single person that downloads songs WOULD have bought every song if it wasn't available for free. (Once again, greatly overestimating what their albums are worth.)
Two... Hundred... THOUSAND... Dollars... (Score:4, Funny)
#2: Uh, sir, I'm not sure that figure will quite do it...
Dr. Evil: Well, okay, then. Two... Hundred... MILLION... Dollars!
#2: Yes, but you see, that really not so much money anymore. Congress spent more than that on their new gymnasium...
Dr. Evil: Alright. Try this then: Two... Hundred... BILLION...
(#2 nods)
Dr. Evil: ...Dollars. Alright--let's contact the press...
I believe in the Free Market (Score:2)
If the copyright holders want to charge $1 for a song, or $15 for a CD or DVD, that's their business, I'd never pay those prices. When I copy a music or film that's being offered for sale at a price I wouldn't pay, I'm causing exactly $0.00 in losses to the copyright holder.
I usually watch movies which I downloaded through P2P when I ride the bus. If I didn't have the option to download those films for free or for a price I think fair, I would never pay the prices the copyright holders try to charge. I'd wa
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)