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'?"
They must've gone to the RIAA School of Math.
http://www.archive.org/movies/collection.php?colle ction=feature_films
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?
The MPAA did say "According to British intelligence..." before citing that statistic.
Catwoman was a flop! It must be those darn internet pirates!
In order to stay "qualified" for these surveys and, in the end, get paid, many users will answer "yes" to every question that may lead to more questions. Internet surveys CAN be useful for market research purposes, but only when the respondents are confident that their answers won't effect their compensation rate.
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?
94.3% of that book is true.
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.
You mean to tell me that if a study on movie piracy is paid for by the people who lose money from movie piracy, it's not going to be unbiased?
Yeah, right. Next, you'll be telling me that classes on copyright law sponsored by the RIAA are one-sided.
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.
Further, a rather disturbing study has revealed that nearly 50% of all high school students will graduate in the bottom half of their class.
hey, if 1 in 4 people have illegally downloaded music, thats a nice voting demographic for some politician. i should run on a pro-p2p pro-tech platform. who's with me!
www.gaian-mind.org - eco-punk/crust coop and collective | www.anarchistfederation.org - so cal anarchist federation
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?
-- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
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.
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.
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.
Why?
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?
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.
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.