Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPAA Botched Study On College Downloading

Posted by kdawson on from the math-is-hard dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Associated Press reports that in a 2005 study the MPAA conducted through an outfit called LEK, the movie trade association vastly overestimated how much college students engage in illegal movie downloading. Instead of '44 percent of the industry's domestic losses' owing to their piracy, it's 15 percent — and one expert is quoted as saying even that number is way too high. Dan 'Sammy' Glickman's gang admitted to the mishap, blaming 'human error,' and promised 'immediate action to both investigate the root cause of this problem as well as substantiate the accuracy of the latest report.'"

6 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah but... by RobertM1968 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While they are at least admitting that THIS report is highly erroneous, it does not even begin to address the plethora of similar reports they have bombarded the media and Internet with that have similar figures.

    So... which reality are they going with? Agreeing that this report is highly off compromises many of their financial claims of the damages file sharing does... or perhaps they will just admit this report is wrong due to "human error" - but the others are right "Please believe everything else we are saying - even though it contradicts our admission of error here."

    C'mon... who does the RIAA think they are fooling? (RIAA) retract all your ridiculous claims - or dont bother... the rest of us know the truth - and have for years.

    --
    StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
    1. Re:Yeah but... by Merusdraconis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It took the RIAA members about ten years to get from music being shared on the Net to condoning some kind of online store. It's taken the MPAA members, what, about four? Assuming, of course, that iTunes is the first online store to get some kind of wide approval from the various copyright holders for both examples.

      Admittedly the root cause is not that the RIAA/MPAA is inherently evil - they're just PR people, mostly (which negates the whole 'they're not the evil ones' argument but bear with me for a second) - it's the member corporations that have the lawyers that are doing the suing and refuse to change their business model to respond to the market. The root cause of the problem here is that it absolutely blindsided the executives, and they had no-one at any kind of level who could tell them what was going on and what they needed to do about it to respond sensibly to the challenges the Internet posed. These executives didn't give a toss about computers, and frankly who could blame them, they're executives of music and movie companies and actually giving a toss about the industry they're in was seen as being revolutionary.

      Instead, they reasoned that they'd be inevitably be reeled in by some kind of conman who came in and spoke big words about Internet at them if they tried doing something, and bunkered down and fought like old men. It's a big paradigm shift to think of one's product as essentially a PR stunt to sell peripheral stuff like concerts and DVDs, and for both those who are about the money and didn't want to experiment with new business models, and those who are about the art and didn't want their 'product' becoming essentially worthless, it's a challenge they aren't up to facing.

  2. Completely accidental, can happen to anyone by Schmool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Somehow it always happens to this kind of outfits. Conveniently, the press will jump on the story of those ugly meanies who steal from musicians, but when it's rectification time, that isn't news.

    1. Re:Completely accidental, can happen to anyone by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The BS gets accepted, and those crying foul are regarded as conspiracy theorists...
      Ever noticed how mainstream media has turned "conspiracy theorist" into a negative label?

      No, but seriously, that's exactly what they are. It's just as easy to say, for example "If those statistics were wrong, then how many other similar statistics were also wrong?", than to say "they did it on purpose to infiltrate our legal system". One has a reasonable train of thought behind it and is very constructive, the other is finger-pointing practically devoid of solid evidence, or even a decent plan of action.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  3. Not that I don't disagree by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What do you expect when the content producers are the ones producing the news content?

    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
  4. This is much like Breathalyzers by Evets · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the decision of whether or not to allow Breathalyzer evidence into court came into play, they downplayed the inaccuracy issues by a factor of 10. I want to say they report inaccurate results 20% of the time and they claimed a 2% error rate, but you'll have to ask jeeves or google if you want the right numbers.

    The parallel I see is that the damage is done and at this point it is unlikely to be undone.

    They presented the argument they wanted to the people they wanted when they wanted to do it. Although many universities do not have programs in place to prevent piracy, the wheels are in motion and the fact that the decision to do so was based on inaccurate information will not stop anything.