Slashdot Mirror


MPAA Botched Study On College Downloading

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.'"

15 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Human Error by snl2587 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, I guess changing the results does constitute "human error"...

    1. Re:Human Error by jd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only if you accept the hypothesis that the MPAA are comprised of humans. I favour the theory that they are, in fact, a consortium of daleks.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Human Error by Entropius · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope -- if they were a consortium of Daleks, they'd write better dialogue.

  2. 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.

    1. Re:Yeah but... by WK2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      This article is about the MPAA, not the RIAA. It is understandable how you got them mixed up, though. They seem to be molded from the same cloth.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    2. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. Re:Any details on the actual study itself? by rob1980 · · Score: 5, Funny

    They just e-mailed the CEOs of Sony, Fox, Warner Brothers, etc., and asked them to pick a number between 1 and 50.

  5. First impressions by darkhitman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Of course they promise they'll look into it now, because it doesn't matter anymore. The mass public will remember that the MPAA loses 44% of its profits to piracy. That it's since been proven incorrect is almost inconsequential, when it comes to public opinion: the mass media won't cover the story twice just for the sake of correctness, and people will buy right into the MPAA's 'accidentally-mistaken' survey's results.

    --
    Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
  6. just as I posted on K5... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My content from the financial perspective of DRM.. and pretty much why they're done for.

    ___
    What alternatives do we have?

    Our body of law gives rights to the creators and their protected ability of being the one to approve copies. Regardless of whether we agree or now with this, that is our situation.

    Now, we take this to the "digital domain". Those older creators want, no.. need these protections as they see in the non-internet world. The only real way to "guarantee" this is by digital restrictions. The best way I think of this is that of a akin to a capability system and the copyright maintainer has an account on your machine.

    However, our machines are ours. The geeks amongst us demand that we are able to control our software and hardware. What was unable to do in WinXP, Vista seems to offer the beginning of that capability system with the media companies at the kill switch. And to top it off, Vista has remotely disabling drivers for "holes" that might appear. For those that own a machine, this OS laughs in their face, as if saying "Bring It On!"

    And there are many casualties. Those casualties are the Joe and Jane Publics that don't understand this issue close enough, or think that all needs to be done is burn to DVD... just like the iPod to music. When they find out that they are locked with binary garbage that cannot be used for any fair use purpose (backing up owned DVDs is fair usage).

    And where are we now? When the users know they are eventually shafted, those that have the know-how will show others where to download the movies and the music they legitimately bought. Once they know they were taken advantage of, any feeling of "theft" (or whatever you call it) will be gone. The media companies had their chance to do their dealings with the public honestly, but have failed.

    Just like língchí.. Death by a thousand cuts.

    From K5

    And just to expand on that, the media guys had their chance to do honest dealings with the public and the artists. They instead thought they could continue on with their little game. They simply cant.

    As a last comment, ill give the link and the quote of the starting of the nasty fall of the media empire...

    This past week's issue of The Economist has a heart-rending vignette from one of the most ruthlessly capitalist industries on the planet: "In 2006 EMI, the world's fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. "That was the moment we realized the game was completely up," an EMI exec told the magazine.

    --
  7. Re:Any details on the actual study itself? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the fact that they picked 44 instead of 42 shows their disharmony with life, the universe and everything?

    Very interesting, sir! VERY interesting!

  8. Re:Any details on the actual study itself? by ehrichweiss · · Score: 5, Funny

    You forgot to mention how the CEOs, upon learning what the number was for, in hindsight wanted to pick a number between 75 and 98.

    --
    0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  9. 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.
  10. 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.