Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Piracy Survey - Junk Research
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'?"
Since when would we trust the MPAA anyways?
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
People wo think that statistics are the straight truth are idiots. This is just a further example of how one can easily manipulate numbers to prove a point. Simpel you take the number of downloaded movies, and divide by the number of people online, and you could create a stat that justifies this claim, or just look at subsection like china and be like everyone has pirated software on thier computer so therefore everyone must be pirating worldwide.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
You don't trust sponsored "research", period.
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.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
If you're not going to trust 'sponsored' research, you've got no one to trust. All research is funded by someone, and that someone always has something to gain or lose (why else pay for it?). Who would pay for studies of internet movie downloading, aside from movie studios and internet corporations? What's important is to look at the studies from the opposing sides so that you can draw a line down the middle or test each against each other.
G
Surveys can easily be skewed, you just have to know how to ask the questions. If I asked my mother if she has ever downloaded a movie off the internet, she would respond "Yes"... because she considers all those little movieclips, and streaming media to be "Movies". In that respect, it would be very easy to conceive that 1 in 4 people have downloaded a movie off the internet.
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.
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.
...when it was funded and published by a company it harms.
Of course, we'll later learn it was just to bolster a less obvious plan.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
A bank can post record profits, but fraud against that bank is still wrong.
I really enjoyed the idea that the MPAA took this survey as 25% of all internet users download movies. As the article points out, it never dawned on them that you can LEGALLY download movies all over the place. Given, these are not your Hollywood blockbusters, but they are still movies that are being downloaded.
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.
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.
In-a-nutshell, the last 10-15 years has shown a trend in advertisers and corporate interests to be more and more bold about asserting hyperbole as fact.
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?
The point being what so many Slashdot posters have said before:
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.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW