Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood Says Piracy Has Ripple Effect
ColinPL writes to mention a Washington Post article about a new study backed by Hollywood on intellectual piracy. The study, which they're presenting to lawmakers today, claims that piracy has a ripple effect on the economy. According to the study, lost revenues may have as much as three times the impact previously imagined. From the article: "Lawmakers and federal agencies such as the Justice and State departments have helped Hollywood battle physical piracy -- specifically, counterfeit DVDs. But now the stakes are especially high for entertainment companies as they sell more of their products online in the form of digital songs, movies and other intellectual property. Internet piracy may be tougher for lawmakers to conceptualize, entertainment companies fear."
I think the word Hollywood is looking for is *hoodwink*.
*Everything* has a ripple effect on the economy. That's why it's called "the economy" as a whole. You can't expect a noticeable shift in traditional cash flow to not have at least some sort of chain reaction or reactions elsewhere.
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
All Hollywood has to do is change the language so words like "theft" apply to non-applicable situations such as copyright infringement. After they succeed at this, they can transmute the words arson, rape, and murder to describe it. Make sure "think of the children" is mentioned occasionally.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Making crappy movies.
Sueing your audience.
Making your customers go through crap that people who don't pay don't have to go through.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
This study recieved funding from NBC Universal and the MPAA. Why am I having a hard time taking it seriously?
I stopped buying DVDs since I'm never certain if the version out today won't be replaced by a extended version in six month and/or a gift box set next year. I want to spend my money only once. Not twice or thrice for the same product with extra features that should've been there in the first place.
"It's important to remember, however, that even though piracy prevents money from reaching the movie industry, those dollars probably stay in the economy, one intellectual property expert said."
Translation: It doesn't really matter if they take their made up number and multiply it by three. The economy wasn't hurt.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Hmm, perhaps the memories of the members of parliament, senators, congressmen and women should have their memories refreshed.
In fact, it's the pirates who benefit the economy most, they produce the goods at a far lower cost, the benefit is far and wide, what is saved on music and videos can be spent on more important items.
Deleted
Hollywood study finds that Hollywood deserves more money. Big surprise?
Is that so? From a recent press release:
Just because the Slashdot crowd doesn't like something doesn't mean that average consumers have the same view. Get over yourself and UNDERTAND THIS, the RIAA and MPAA don't give a flying fuck about what you think. You are not their target customer.
"The economy wasn't hurt."
Actually, quite the opposite. Considering that the IP industries are particularly inefficient in their production as protected entities, the economy as a whole _gains_ from the failure to enforce their monopoly priviliges.
Piracy means the economy as a whole gains _both_ the wealth inherent in an extra copy of a certain material for the particular consumer _plus_ the wealth inherent in whatever else the money is spent on.
Translation: The numbers made up by the industries are completely irrelvant, IP is merely a method of redistributing wealth to achieve a specific purpose, similar to taxes, and as such the only interesting measure is wether a) the money actually goes to it's intended recipient and b) wether it's an efficient use of resources.
I'm sure that everybody was far too busy thinking up cute "+5 Funny" comments to go out and actually take a look at the actual study... but for anybody who's perhaps interested in formulating a defensible position on the matter based on facts rather than groupthink, the actual publication is available here.
For a bunch of geeks, I'd think that doing a bit of research & gathering the facts before reaching a conclusion would be the *first* thing you'd do when trying to combat what you decry as a campaign of FUD & misinformation. Sarcasm isn't going to win the case in a courtroom, or in Congress. Deconstruct their argument & their methods. Show their assumptions & conclusions to be faulty.
Internet piracy may be tougher for lawmakers to conceptualize, entertainment companies fear.
Feh! Like's that's ever been an obstacle in the past...
MPAA: Mr. Lawmaker, Internet Piracy of our copyrighted works is bad. When everyday people decide that they can download movies illegally without fear of repercussion, we find that sales plummet, the industry suffers, and the culture as a whole is significantly damaged.
Lawmaker: Eh?
MPAA: We're hemorrhaging money thanks to Intarwebs!
Lawmaker. Oh.
MPAA: And you see, accounting has this weird thing where our profits are directly linked to the campaign contributions that we make to you.
Lawmaker: And what would you like your new law called?
They've undermined the authority of parents by luring their children into their culture of natural born deviancy (and now complete and utter stagnation), and especially, they've been encouraging kids to be rebellious.
Now that rebellion has returned home.
Hollywood can boo hoo hoo all they want to, but the truth is, you always reap what you sow.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
According to the study, lost revenues may have as much as three times the impact previously imagined.
If nothing proves they are imagining things more than this, I haven't seen it. Doesn't this statement indicate their losses are imaginary and that these new estimations are three times as imaginary?
I hate to say that it's time for another law but I think there should be "rules and ethics of evidence" introduced into law. Such a law would state that any studies submitted to the senate or congress must have, at the very least, an impartial study to balance out the claims of special interests. We all know how stats and studies can be twisted into outrageous lies and exaggerations. It's time we start disallowing such crap on a regular basis. If these special interests are willing to fund their own studies as evidence for a need for legislation, then they should also be willing to have another study made as ordered by the legislative commission that will be reviewing the information. It would seem like a natural extension of our other fair and balanced matters of law such as in the case of evidence presented in a court.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tired of the lies, damned lies and statistics given as evidence to write new laws. And while we're at it, let's stop the dairy companies from recommending our RDA of milk that seems to go up at every opportunity. Talk about conflicting interests.... and oil companies denying global warming? Enough already!