Slashdot Mirror
Ars Examines Outlandish "Lost To Piracy" Claims and Figures
Nom du Keyboard writes "For years the figures of $200 billion and 750,000 jobs lost to intellectual property piracy have been bandied about, usually as a cudgel to demand ever more overbearing copyright laws with the intent of diminishing of both Fair Use and the Public Domain. Now ARS Technica takes a look into origin and validity these figures and finds far less than the proponents of them might wish."
If you're pirating recent then nothing of value is lost :)
...that the people who wouldn't have jobs if there was no piracy are the same people who discovered these numbers?
As I've said before, the actual losses are zero. An opportunity cost only exists when an opportunity exists in the first place. Nobody is crying foul that horse and buggy makers are out thousands of jobs and dollars due to the advent of cars.
To content industry: the advent of the internet results in consumer p2p. It cannot be stopped. Deal with it. Do so by competing against it, not legislating against it.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
And not to mention, the massive loss of dignity to Talk Like A Pirate Day.
We all knew this; having a geek site say it doesn't mean much. Now, if the New York Times did an analysis and came up with the same information, and published it, that would actually be news.
Just remember that 74% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Sig temporarily out of service.
Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture goes into detail about this subject and comes to the conclusion that it's a load of bullshit made up by the media companies.
Your analogy completely breaks down; buggy whip manufacturers went out business because demand vanished. Here, demand isn't vanishing.
I've always said I'd believe the numbers when an insurance company pays out a policy for the amount, and/or a company writes off the loss to the IRS in tax filings. Generally speaking, I don't accept claims that are in a forum or format that would not be construed as testimony by a federal court. I have never heard anybody with any authority to speak for a US corporation, give a deposition under oath that makes the claims addressed in the article. It is as though they tell their shareholders, artists, performance rights organizations, and their own attorneys, different things from what they tell the FBI, the Customs agents, certain elements in the media, and lobbyists. I'm thinking there might actually be a crime here, but what do I know?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
There should be a $150,000 fine enacted immediately to offset the damages.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
What really kills me is not that the RIAA and MPAA lied (*gasp*) but by how much they've lied. The numbers they quote aren't even vaguely believable. Even if one fudges some numbers and gets creative with accounting/HR tracking, the numbers are still off by several orders of magnitude. I can understand them fudging numbers (applying lost sales from a downturn in the economy to piracy, for example), but these numbers aren't even close to that. Not by the longest of long shots. As the article says, $200 billion is more than the movie and music industry combined. Are they really claiming they've lost more to piracy than they made? Are they really claiming that 7% of the unemployed are from their industries? Because that's what their numbers are saying...
Why do people have to be so black-and-white on this issue? Pirates think everything should be free and argue like they're entitled to steal. Argue with them, and they point to illegal MediaSentry tactics and DRM as justification.
The truth is both sides are wrong. The MPAA, RIAA, ESA, etc. forge huge numbers of loss, not pointing to money that shifted to another market. Pirates aren't entitled to steal, but people who produce IP shouldn't be entitled to harass their customers either.
If you really want to solve the issue it is quite simple.
Put out a convenient product, instead of a DRM-ladened one, and people will but it. People will even accept DRM if it isn't too obnoxious. People are buying music and video legally over the internet. Digital distribution is the future and the big boys better embrace it rather than fight it.
Next, if you want to see were the real theft is, it isn't 12-year old girls downloading Rhianna albums, but rather rampant pirating in places like China and Russia, where pirates mass-produce your material and resell it illegally.
The US economy would be vastly better off if they received money from the IP they produced globally. The entire world watches our shows, movies, listens to our music, uses our software, plays our games, etc.
A real international force (unlike the UN) should be able to enforce sanctions against nations who do nothing to crack down on massive piracy. Allowing pirated DVDs to be sold on the street is not acceptable.
Next, consumers in China often have less money to spend than their US counterparts (though that may change) and they are used to cheap prices on pirate goods.
The MPAA should HIRE the guys doing the best bootleg releases over there to turn around quick, legal, localized releases and sell them cheap to compete with the pirate market.
The sad thing is that pirate releases are sometimes vastly more convenient, and better than commercial releases. Check out pirate Windows XP CDs loaded with new drivers, pre-loaded apps, simpler installers, etc.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Whole corporations such as the RIAA have been created to combat the travesties of pirates on the high webs.
The RIAA is older than I am, and I'm a geezer.
An analog disk has a hard time with bass; the grooves would have to be way too deep. Fortunately, you can correct this in hardware using what is called an equalization curve. It works somewhat like Dolby in reverse.
The record is recorded with the bass attenuated, and played back with the opposice curve (see the wikipedia article for detail).
In the beginning there was no standardization, but with high fidelity albums came the need for standardization. The RIAA was formed to standardize the various hardware companies' and recording companies' curves.
They didn't start suing their customers until this century.
Free Martian Whores!
In a certain way, it advantages the entertainment industry to claim such outlandish figures. If you're going to sue an average woman for hundreds of thousand of dollars, or bully a 12 year old child for upwards of 25,000$, you need to make your claim based on a tiny percentage of your actual losses. What court would allow a six digit suit against any ONE person when your ENTIRE industry losses only tally up a few millions? It's all part of being able to push around helpless citizens, like the Juggernaut picking on a class of non-mutant first graders.
You make the fallacy of equating every pirated instance to a lost sale. Many songs are copied that would never be bought otherwise, and the same applies to movies and software. People would simply go without at the price demanded for a legal sale, or find a cheaper alternative (listen less, FOSS, etc.). So to say that sales are lost to piracy is no more valid than flogging the figures of $200B and 750,000 jobs.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You're losing sales.
Let's go through the logic of that shall we?
Seems to make sense at first.
Problem with that logic is that it typically implies that every instance of copying equals an instance of lost sales which is clearly and demonstrably not true. Someone who cannot afford the authorized copy will never purchase it so that cannot be a lost sale. Someone who is unwilling to pay the price being asked is likewise never going to be a lost sale. Ergo the only population in question is those who are able and willing to pay the price being asked but decide to pirate anyway. This is necessarily a smaller population.
What really is being claimed is that copyright infringement cannibalizes a percentage of sales that otherwise *may* have come to the copyright holder. For digital works, the marginal cost of a copy is essentially zero so while the copyright holder may lose a sale, he/she/it doesn't lose any cash since they have not lost an asset they owned. It might induce a higher fixed cost per unit since fewer units are sold and the cost cannot be amortized over as many units. A problem to be sure but a very different issue.
It also implies that unauthorized copying never results in purchases of authorized merchandise. It is relatively easy to find examples of products where bootleg/unauthorized copies actually helped drive the popularity of the product to the point where authorized copy sales increase.
You'll notice the word theft never was mentioned because it isn't theft. This doesn't make the copyright infringement any more moral or legal but it does make it a different situation.