Slashdot Mirror
Feds Question Big Media's Piracy Claims
WrongSizeGlass writes "CNET is reporting that the GAO's study of big media's piracy claims has raised some questions. (Here are the study's summary, highlights [PDF], and full report [PDF].) 'After spending a year studying how piracy and illegal counterfeiting affects the United States, the Government Accountability Office says it still doesn't know for sure.... The GAO said that most of the published information, anecdotal evidence, and records show that piracy is a drag on the US economy, tax revenue, and in some cases potentially threatens national security and public health. But the problem is, according to the GAO, the data used to quantify piracy isn't reliable.'"
Just ask the RIAA for their data on piracy. They should have accurate information.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Of course they're going to use whatever statistics, presented in whatever fashion, to make you think that if you don't legislate everything to maximize their old businesses model without change, that everyone will suffer for it.
It's common sense not to take the RIAA/MPAA at their word. Not just because of their previous questionable tactics (suing individuals, scare campaigns,etc.), and how wrong they have been(like the MPAA saying that the VHS would be "the Boston Strangler" of the film industry when it expanded their market tremendously)... they're going to hate anything that, in their view, has a negative impact on their revenue.
I then file a police report that says my car was worth $6 million... would I be busted for filing a false police report?
Of course not. I mean, you -did- have a few CDs in the glove box didn't you? That's what 100+ tracks that you have just unlawfully redistributed (and you recklessly assisted in this by leaving the car running)... oh ... wait, yes that would be a false police report. Your losses are closer to $200 Million.
Look at his name.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
In addition to the fact that most "piracy" numbers are little more than self-serving bullshit, still warm from the asses of entertainment lobbyists from which they were pulled, is the fact that they all too frequently aggregate multiple flavors of "piracy", each with its own distinct properties.
For instance, the only way that "piracy" in the sense of "bittorrent kiddies" can threaten public health is by lowering the cost of sedentary entertainment that helps make us lardasses. On the other hand, "piracy" in the sense of "misrepresenting your sugar pills as some copyrighted/trademarked drug" can and does kill people. Similarly, the idea that bittorrent kiddies are of the slightest use to organized crime is silly. If anything, they are the lower-cost competition. On the other hand, buying poorly-copied DVDs from the shady looking street vendor probably does funnel money in dubiously savory directions.
I assume that this aggregation is largely intentional, allowing a sort of "rhetorical shuffle", where the scariest aspects of each flavor can be pulled out in turn, to create a composite that sounds far worse than it is. Talking about prevalence? Use numbers drawn from casual internet piracy and schoolyard swapping of burned CDs. Talking about risks to life and health? Answer as though all "piracy" involved fake medicine. Playing the "gangs and terrorists" angle? describe all piracy as though it were being conducted commercially by cartels. If you slip from one to the next, without ever clearly distinguishing them, you can fairly easily create an impression that "piracy" has all the worst attributes of its sub-elements.
the data used to quantify piracy isn't reliable
Ya think, DiNozzo?
"There's no doubt that the music industry has declined significantly over the last 10 years," Lamy said. "Countless studies have blamed this on the fact that millions of people have been getting their music for free online. That has translated to thousands of lost jobs in the industry and that's undeniable."
I get music for free online!
I get free samples from iTunes every week.
I get free music from magnatune.com every day.
I get free samples distributed directly by the artists and advertised on 3hive.com.
I don't buy as many CDs because there's so much legally distributed good music online. I buy music online as well, but not as much as I used to buy CDs, and I usually only buy a couple of tracks instead of the whole album. So I don't need to pirate music for my demand for the traditional music distributor's high-overhead services to go down.
I don't buy a newspaper any more, because I get better and more timely news online, some through reprinted wire services, some through independent journalists. I'm not "pirating news" any more than I'm "pirating music". I can see how this is a problem, but it's not a problem that's going to be solved by writing stricter laws or putting people into jail... or by charging newspaper prices for digital news. The internet makes distributing information more efficient. Businesses based on a percentage of older more expensive distribution mechanisms are going to have to change or adapt... but trying to use the law to attack a decreasingly important part of the problem isn't going to solve it. It's not going to magically become more expensive to distribute bits... it's going to get cheaper. There's going to be less and less overhead to get your margin from as the industry gets more efficient.
Get used to it. Capitalism is dead. Corporate socialism is alive and well [unrulymedia.com].
That's not entirely true. Profits are still privatized. We've only socialized failure.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Actually it's called Fascism. And not the slur that those on the 'left' throw at those on the 'right' usually after being called a communist or terrorist.
From Wikipedia
Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy.
Pretty much what we have in this country, when most of the congress critters admit to not reading the bill they're sponsoring (or voting on), but just passing along whatever some lobbyist handed over with a sack of cash.