Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Piracy PI Talks About Building Cases Against File-Sharers
An anonymous reader writes "Torrent Freak has an interesting interview with a former private investigator who was hired to track people who pirated software and movies. He relates some of the tactics used to make evidence more appealing to police, the media and lawmakers. He said, 'We discussed the formula for extrapolating the potential street value earnings of "laboratories" and we were instructed to count all blank discs in our seizure figures as if they were potential product. Mr. Gane also explained that the increased loss approximation figures were derived from all forms of impacts on decreasing cinema patronage right through to the farmer who grows the corn for popping.' Regarding the head of AFACT, the article notes, 'Gane understood that the media was an essential tool towards AFACT's goal of getting tougher copyright legislation in place. And for this purpose, it was a good idea to bend the truth a bit.'"
Years ago, I decided to get rid of my car and go by bicycle for personal transportation. For fun, I tried to evaluate the impact of my choice on the economy as a whole, taking into account, amongst other things:
- On the pro side: lesser oil consumption on my part, lesser burden on the national insurance system because I'm healthier, supporting the bicycle industry by purchasing bike parts, etc...
- On the con side: hurting automobile sales, which in turn contributes to layoffs, unemployment, hurting indirect jobs, etc...
I found that I had to make wild assumptions to come up with figures, and the further I went from the immediate impact of my decision, the dicier it was to come up with believable figures. But what I also found is that I could come up with an impressive and very serious-looking spreadsheet sheet that either proved that I had caused millions in damage to the economy, or vice-versa, depending on the premises I had chosen.
In short, you can make figures say anything, and even if they're BS, if they're presented in a synthetic, professional way, they still look credible.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
What a low-life pond scum, willing participating in such a corrupt scheme/racket. Some people will do anything for money.
May the worms eat his dead body from its casket and vomit his remains.
I'm not sure how busting people for making counterfeit hardcopy and selling them for money qualifies as a "corrupt scheme/racket". Most people would consider plain old fashioned theft to be just that... theft.
Oh, I'm sorry, you must have just read the slashdot title and immediately posted your rant without reading either the summary OR the article. Maybe you should stop doing that, it makes you look like an idiot.
First, piracy is a copyright violation; piracy is NOT theft.
But to a address your point:
I'm not sure how busting people for making counterfeit hardcopy and selling them for money qualifies as a "corrupt scheme/racket".
The corrupt scheme is the inflating of the value of the so-called piracy by counting every blank disc as a pirated copy and lying like this for political purposes. This is the same immoral/sleazy tactic used by police to inflate the "street value" of seized marijuana plants. The corrupt cops count seeds, seedlings, leaves, stems, root balls, etc. when they know that only the bud of the pot plant gets sold and has real value. They lie this way to make the "crime" seem bigger.
This is the same reason the corrupt PI lies about the value of pirated material. But in this case, they're also doing it to influence corrupt, corporate-funded politicians to pass harsher laws.
I see some pretty ludicrous claims on the other side too. Ask anyone who's tried to make a living on donations how that "pay if you like it" model is working out for them.
Show me a single person who has claimed artists could completely support themselves with a "pay if you like it model". People opposing the the industry point out that you have to find a new way of monetizing music, because charging X$ for a "copy" of the music won't work anymore when that copy can be made for essentially nothing. They need to add value in some other form.
The whole "pay if you like it" exercise is to demonstrate that the claim of the RIAA that "non one will pay for music if they can get it for free" is false, that many still will pay. Most of the bands trying this exercise also have other purchase options, like including signed physical copies, access to limited concert tickets, or other things that a fan will care about.
Poor attempt to make the two sides out as equally unreasonable.