Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Hollywood Says Piracy Has Ripple Effect 309

Posted by Zonk
from the truly-important-research dept.
ColinPL writes to mention a Washington Post article about a new study backed by Hollywood on intellectual piracy. The study, which they're presenting to lawmakers today, claims that piracy has a ripple effect on the economy. According to the study, lost revenues may have as much as three times the impact previously imagined. From the article: "Lawmakers and federal agencies such as the Justice and State departments have helped Hollywood battle physical piracy -- specifically, counterfeit DVDs. But now the stakes are especially high for entertainment companies as they sell more of their products online in the form of digital songs, movies and other intellectual property. Internet piracy may be tougher for lawmakers to conceptualize, entertainment companies fear."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hollywood Says Piracy Has Ripple Effect

Comments Filter:
  • Wrong word... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WickedLogic (314155) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:27PM (#16250949) Journal
    I think the word Hollywood is looking for is *hoodwink*.
  • by aztektum (170569) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:27PM (#16250953)
    Eye implants, ala Minority Report. Only instead of just targeting you with advertising when you go somewhere, they also dictate what digital media, books, magazines and lazer light shows you can view. If you paid your fee you can see for the day.
  • by Tweekster (949766) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:28PM (#16250963)
    is sooo small economically wise it is rather pathetic they have as much pull as they do...the candy industry is about 10 times the size
    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:34PM (#16251109) Journal
      The entire movie industry is sooo small economically wise it is rather pathetic they have as much pull as they do...the candy industry is about 10 times the size
      FTFA:
      "It's important to remember, however, that even though piracy prevents money from reaching the movie industry, those dollars probably stay in the economy, one intellectual property expert said."

      Translation: It doesn't really matter if they take their made up number and multiply it by three. The economy wasn't hurt.
      • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:48PM (#16251363)
        "It's important to remember, however, that even though piracy prevents money from reaching the movie industry, those dollars probably stay in the economy, one intellectual property expert said."

        I'm pretty sure that pirates bury their loot on tropical islands.
      • by Znork (31774) on Friday September 29, 2006 @05:02PM (#16251625)
        "The economy wasn't hurt."

        Actually, quite the opposite. Considering that the IP industries are particularly inefficient in their production as protected entities, the economy as a whole _gains_ from the failure to enforce their monopoly priviliges.

        Piracy means the economy as a whole gains _both_ the wealth inherent in an extra copy of a certain material for the particular consumer _plus_ the wealth inherent in whatever else the money is spent on.

        Translation: The numbers made up by the industries are completely irrelvant, IP is merely a method of redistributing wealth to achieve a specific purpose, similar to taxes, and as such the only interesting measure is wether a) the money actually goes to it's intended recipient and b) wether it's an efficient use of resources.
        • if you consider the loss from the poor guy who works an extra shift to buy the latest boxset or movie. If he pirates the movie/show instead, he doesn't work the extra shift. i.e. he's less productive. So the economy loses there. Now, whether you think it's good that the poor guy doesn't have to work an extra shift just to escape from reality for a few hours...
        • by Sathias (884801) on Friday September 29, 2006 @07:49PM (#16253965)
          The more money the movie studios get, the more money that gets given to actors. More disposable income in an actors hand's means they will snort more coke. Buying more coke means drug dealers get more money, which means the cash goes into the black market. And if the government is to be believed, it will end up in the hands of terrorists.

          Do your part for the War on Terror now, download some .avi files!
    • by patrixmyth (167599) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:34PM (#16251111)
      Shh!! Don't give them any ideas, or we'll have CRM (Candy Rights Management), and I won't be able to share my skittles. Oh wait, that would actually be a good idea. Get your own damn skittles, hippie, these are mine! Proceed.
      • Actualy, you don't want CRM.

        "Here, take it. My dentist will be much happier if you eat it."

        "Here, take it. I'm the one who will be losing weight."

        "Here, take it. Diabetes is no fun."

    • by bfizzle (836992)
      It is enough of an impact to get the attention of Congress. What the entertainment industry is failing to account for is the economic impact that their government given monopoly is making on the economy.
    • by tddoog (900095) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:39PM (#16251201)
      Hollywood props up the monstrous candy industry. Just think of that $10 box of raisinets you buy at the theatre. This is exactly the kind of ripple effect they are talking about. No movie patrons in the theatre => no candy sales => no $2000 root canals. Won't someone think of the dentists?
      • by Thaelon (250687)
        Who pays those outrageous prices for candy?

        I just bring my own. The lowly theater workers have yet to stop me. If they try, I'll demand my money back for my ticket and go download it instead. Despite being afraid of being stopped and having this argument ready, I've yet to need it.

        Besides, I've heard that the candy/popcorn/soda is where the theater really makes its money, not the tickets. So you know the candy companies aren't getting shit.
        • by cyberwench (10225)
          This is actually pretty accurate, from what I understand. Personally, I'm only really concerned about this at small movie theaters, or at the local drive-in - places that actually give good value for the money. The smaller places can make or break on whether people are hitting the concessions.

          Personally, I've got no problem paying the prices for the soda and popcorn, but I've got to draw the line at the candy. 5x retail is just a wee bit too much.

          My favorite theater so far was one in Portland that makes its
        • pfft. I bring my own booze into the theater. If I forget ice and mixers I'll buy a $4 drink and make cocktails in courtesy cups.
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:28PM (#16250967) Journal
    The study, which they're presenting to lawmakers today, claims that piracy has a ripple effect on the economy.
    The study also claims that piracy is on the rise to become America's number one killer by the end of the year. It claims that piracy is capable of running rampant down the street and reeking havoc everywhere.

    They interviewed a crew hand from Waterworld and, aside from forcing him out of a job, the unnamed victim reported that piracy forcefully entered his home and raped him in front of his youngest son. Piracy has taken not only his source of income but also the joy that he and his son once shared.

    The report concludes with piracy being at large and dangerous. Piracy is capable of flipping bits in a pattern that resembles music and is also known to cause cancer.

    The study, which they're presenting to lawmakers today...
    So when are lawmakers presented with the Piracy Is Actually Pretty Bitching for Consumers report? What about the Economics Research is Bullshit & Baseless report? Oh, that's right, the other side of the issue never gets to hear it's voice heard and no alternatives will ever be explored. Silly me.
    • Re:More on the Study (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:38PM (#16251181) Journal
      "According to the L.E.K. study, 38 percent of all movie piracy occurs on the Internet, with counterfeit DVDs accounting for the rest."

      Caption of the picture:
      Pirated-movie distribution operations such as this one in New York mean a loss to industry of about $20.5 billion per year, lost opportunities for about 140,000 new jobs and $800 million in lost tax revenue, the study says. (Recording Industry Association Of America Via Associated Press)

      60% of piracy has NOTHING to do with the internet
      XYZ x 60% = ~$20.5 billion

      Despite that, the MPAA does exactly what the RIAA has been doing with its plethora of lawsuits aimed at filesharing instead of targeting counterfeiters.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Despite that, the MPAA does exactly what the RIAA has been doing with its plethora of lawsuits aimed at filesharing instead of targeting counterfeiters.

        Easier to crea... collect evidence and pursue... heck, none of them have to leave their offices to do it, whereas somebody selling physical disks, ya gotta actually catch 'em at it, get 'em to sell you a disk or 3, and so on. File sharers, ya just gotta show some screenshot of your computer with some names of songs on it, point your finger, and yell real l

  • by Gadgetfreak (97865) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:29PM (#16251001)
    *Everything* has a ripple effect on the economy. That's why it's called "the economy" as a whole. You can't expect a noticeable shift in traditional cash flow to not have at least some sort of chain reaction or reactions elsewhere.

    • by mlmitton (610008) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:49PM (#16251379)
      It's sillier than that. The money that would have paid for all the popcorn and ushers doesn't disappear; it just doesn't go into the entertainment industry. Consider the extreme case: everyone pirates all movies. Here, the entertainment industry will disappear, but the video game industry (or tourism, or books, or whatever you want to put here) *grows*. These "ripple effects" are straw men designed to get society to think it impacts them. There would be a negligible impact on GDP or taxes.

      The more technical detail: it's the difference between a partial equilibrium and a general equilibrium model of the economy. In the partial model (the supply and demand curves we all know and love), you assume that you've completely modeled all relevant aspects of the economy, or rather, you assume nothing else matters. It's an incredibly useful approximation in many cases, but an approximation all the same. In general equilibrium, everything (theoretically) gets modeled--all the goods remotely related to entertainment, income, where income changes get spent, and so on.

      The idiocy of these "ripple effect" arguments is that they're using partial equilibrium to derive general equilibria effects! In other words, they're using a model that assumes nothing else matters to draw conclusions about the very things the model says doesn't matter.

    • by Technician (215283) on Friday September 29, 2006 @05:00PM (#16251587)
      *Everything* has a ripple effect on the economy. That's why it's called "the economy" as a whole. You can't expect a noticeable shift in traditional cash flow to not have at least some sort of chain reaction or reactions elsewhere.

      Entirely true. The money spent on CD's, DVD's, Video Games, Movie tickets is not spent at Applebees, Disneyworld, Six Flags, US Forest Service, etc. The consumer has a limited income. It is either saved for retirement, spent on the requirements such as shelter, food, clothing, or entertainment. The expendible portion and it's ripple effect is a two way street. It makes a diffrence where the consumer spends the money. It is not a one way street of if the consumer spends the money or not.

      If the percieved value for the money is not there and there is a piracy way to acquire the music, Then the money will be spent on someting of tangible value such as a concert ticket or an I-Pod.
    • by Znork (31774)
      Indeed. For an extreme example, try implementing an exclusive right on air, then imagine yourself being the 'air industry' trying to exact money for the right of breathing.

      Betcha you'll come up with a whole lot of reasons involving employing hundreds of thousands of people counting breaths taken by the citizens everywhere.

      The fact that those hundreds of thousands of people would be far more usefully employed elsewhere might even escape you completely. And such inconvenient facts like oxygen being produced b
  • by krell (896769) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:29PM (#16251007) Journal
    All Hollywood has to do is change the language so words like "theft" apply to non-applicable situations such as copyright infringement. After they succeed at this, they can transmute the words arson, rape, and murder to describe it. Make sure "think of the children" is mentioned occasionally.
    • All Hollywood has to do is change the language so words like "theft" apply to non-applicable situations such as copyright infringement.

      Hollywood doesn't need to - despite all the ranting of the pro-piracy crowd attempting to divert attention from the fact they are committing a criminal act, the usage of "theft" and "piracy" in relation to copying and copyright infringement goes back centuries. It's the pro-piracy crowd thats trying to redefine words with perfectly understood meanings, not Hollywood and th

  • by Demon-Xanth (100910) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:29PM (#16251009)
    Making crappy movies.
    Sueing your audience.
    Making your customers go through crap that people who don't pay don't have to go through.
  • Um... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pancake Bandit (987571) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:30PM (#16251021)
    This study recieved funding from NBC Universal and the MPAA. Why am I having a hard time taking it seriously?
  • by creimer (824291) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:31PM (#16251045) Homepage
    I stopped buying DVDs since I'm never certain if the version out today won't be replaced by a extended version in six month and/or a gift box set next year. I want to spend my money only once. Not twice or thrice for the same product with extra features that should've been there in the first place.
    • I stopped buying DVDs since I'm never certain if the version out today won't be replaced by a extended version in six month and/or a gift box set next year. I want to spend my money only once.

      Then only spend it once - don't blame Hollywood for your own lack of self control.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I don't see what that has to do with self control. They rarely announce that the standard dvd comes out now, the extended directors cut comes out in six months, and the super collosal box set next year. They add stuff later to force those who really like the product to buy it again. Or con those who were on the fence and didn't buy the first go round to buy it now. If you want the best version, sometimes all you can do is buy again and Ebay the first one. Right now I'm putting off buying Underworld II
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Monkelectric (546685)
          It's essentially a penalty for being a fan.
          • by Firehed (942385)
            Doesn't just apply to movies, either. I've spent hundreds on the Final Fantasy series on top of the cost of games, and I made thousands off of people buying $50+ items for a $20 game.

            That's why I'm glad that no new movies have been any good. No worries about spending my money even once, let alone multiple times.
        • I don't see what that has to do with self control. They rarely announce that the standard dvd comes out now, the extended directors cut comes out in six months, and the super collosal box set next year.

          I don't see that they need to... Anyone with the slightest amount of common sense and who has paid the slightest attention knows full well that is how the release schedule goes.

          They add stuff later to force those who really like the product to buy it again. Or con those who were on the fence

    • by ShibaInu (694434) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:42PM (#16251257)
      So, when the new version comes out, your old version suddenly becomes unwatchable? Seems to be that whatever content you had is still there. The problem isn't that Hollywood does this, the problem is that people reward them by buying the stuff.
      • by Solandri (704621)

        So, when the new version comes out, your old version suddenly becomes unwatchable? Seems to be that whatever content you had is still there.

        And that right there is the problem. When you buy an improved DVD, you're double-paying. The original DVD purchase gets you a license to view the original movie any time you want. The new DVD purchase gets you a license to view the original movie + extended bits any time you want. So now you have two licenses to watch the original movie. You've double-paid.

        Soft

    • by misleb (129952)
      So your answer to periodically updated DVDs is to not buy your favorite movie on DVD at all? Oh yeah, you show 'em! Don't you think that you might be the only one hurt by this?

      What extra features could possibly matter that much anyway?

      -matthew

  • Ripple? (Score:5, Funny)

    by misleb (129952) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:33PM (#16251089)
    Ripple effect is fine. I just don't want to see a butterfly effect. One person pirates, and the next thing you know we have a chimpanzee for president and our rights are being eroded every day... Oh damn.

    -matthew

  • by DittoBox (978894) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:34PM (#16251115) Homepage
    lost revenues may have as much as three times the impact previously imagined.

    Need they say more?

    • by demigod (20497)

      Need they say more?

      Just one word more

      imagined lost revenues may have as much as three times the impact previously imagined.

      See doesn't that look better

    • You win this thread.

  • Is this anything like the ripple effect [wikipedia.org] in the 4400? Is the future of the world at stake? ARE WE ALL GOING TO DIE?!?

    lost revenues may have as much as three times the impact previously imagined

    I see a bright future for cdr and dvdr sales. And Ipods. Eat it, Hollywood.
  • Piracy (Score:4, Funny)

    by Led Nudd (1004881) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:35PM (#16251123)
    It's important to remember, however, that even though piracy prevents money from reaching the movie industry, those dollars probably stay in the economy, one intellectual property expert said. Ridiculous! Doesn't everybody do what I do? That is, sink every penny I save through downloading pirated films into doubloons I keep buried in a chest in my back yard. Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight!
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:35PM (#16251135)
    Hmm, perhaps the memories of the members of parliament, senators, congressmen and women should have their memories refreshed.

    In fact, it's the pirates who benefit the economy most, they produce the goods at a far lower cost, the benefit is far and wide, what is saved on music and videos can be spent on more important items.

     
  • by sinij (911942) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:36PM (#16251139) Journal
    Hollywood study finds that Hollywood deserves more money. Big surprise?
  • by Joe the Lesser (533425) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:36PM (#16251141) Homepage Journal
    What about the study about how only three movies this summer were bearable to watch?

    (Pirates, Sunshine, Superman)
  • Which has a worse effect on the economy? Think about it for a sec... It increases costs of R&D of consumer electronics, it delays to market consumer electronics. It makes so only a select few can market products that will play the content. It makes the hardware more expensive. It decreases the size market that might buy the content.
  • After the recent studies lessening the effects of piracy who is really surprised with one that states that the vastly overblown figures were actually "conservative" now they can go to whichever politician they have in their pockets and whine that the original numbers have to be true.

    I would love to see a week or better yet a month where "piracy" by their definition ceased to be. Friends didnt pass on mix tapes, no one downloaded a game or song, no one loaned out a book, no one tried to move their windows l
  • by CrazedWalrus (901897) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:39PM (#16251217) Journal
    ...now that immorality is hurting them. Is this the same Hollywood that has been overtly hostile to people who insist that there is such a thing as right and wrong? Piracy is just one of the many effects that Hollywood's fuzzy morality is having on society, and it happens to be the one that's directly biting them in the ass. I don't feel a bit sorry for them. In the various ways they've attacked traditional values over the years, I can't help but wonder how they didn't have the foresight to expect their current predicament.

    -Walrus
  • Now that anyone can record a song (that they wrote themselves) in their own home and distribute it over the Internet, isn't that going to reduce the value of the commercially-produced ones that the 'labels' make ? In effect, the 'control of the distribution channel' is gone, and we will be flooded with potentially-brilliant music for free (as advertising for band concerts, or as hobby).

    To a lesser extent, it must be true of films, too. I don't think many individuals are capable of producing 'Star Wars' at

  • entertainment companies fear

    Until they will listen to what we fear [regarding fair use, copying, drm, etc.] I don't really care what they fear. But then again, I'm no lawmaker, and they will listen and do everything to make that fear go away. It's our fears that remain and slowly become reality.
     
  • Can I propose a "Parable of the magically fixed window"?

    Let's say I have a broken window. Perhaps I don't care about it, perhaps I absolutely need it fixed, perhaps I'' only have it fixed if it's cheaper than $x. It doesn't matter.

    If I can magically download a new window from the Internet for free, and if I would have bought one otherwise, I am now free to spend my money on something else. The money goes elsewhere, the economy as a whole should be fine.

    If I wouldn't have had it fixed, then there's no mon

  • Voodoo (Score:5, Funny)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) <{ten.mocrie} {ta} {kaerfshtamevissesbo}> on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:43PM (#16251295) Homepage Journal
    RIAA: Those danm Pirates are attacking our economy with their Voodoo Economics!!

    Pirate: Arrr!! But 'tis naught to the voodoo that you do so well!! Ye scurvy dogs!
  • by mrs clear plastic (229108) <allyn@clearplastic.com> on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:47PM (#16251357) Homepage
    There has been nothing worth copying! The stuff they put out is so pathetic that I would not want to waste bandwith copying.

    I have not been to a first run flick for over 1 year. I have been seeing only 70's and 80's classics such as Blade Runner and Xanadu and James Bond.

    Hollywood's product has really be very dissapointing to say the least. Perhaps Congress shall pass laws that dictate minimum quality to this stuff.

    Luv
    • by pembo13 (770295)
      Most of the people who copy this stuff don't even copy it to watch it. It's more of a packrat mentality than an "I like these movies mentality".
  • Hollywood economics (Score:2, Informative)

    by AlzaF (963971)
    Hollywood needs to start getting its house in order before it can critise piracy for it's falling profits. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/business/media/1 9hollywood.html?ex=1313640000&en=a3d7d097e8c79a00& ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss [nytimes.com]
  • Lately the only thing the United States Government cares about is the "State of the Economy" (and terrorists). We are constantly being bombarded with news stories on why such and such law would stimulate the economy or this and that could be bad for the economy.

    Whatever happened to the government "For the people, by the people"?

    Wait, let me answer that - it has been replaced by the government "For the Corporations, (paid for) by the Corporations".
    • Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but your reasoning is terribly faulty. If our economy tanks...we go into a depression...and while yes the corporations did lose alot of money...they lost it because the PEOPLE were struggling to stay alive. So the state of the economy is a terribly important thing for the government to worry about, in fact, that really was the main purpose for our government even existing, to manage interstate commerce of our united states (USA isn't just some catchy acronym...it
  • Ripple Effect BS (Score:2, Informative)

    by minerat (678240)
    The multiplier effect Hollywood is referring to is a well known economic priciple. Basically money spent in the economy has a ripple effect greater than its actual amount (money spent helps pay someone's salary, who then uses the money to go out and buy goods, etc). The assumption they're erroneously making is that the money not being spent on movies because of piracy (and let's face it, they grossly overestimate that by claiming that every pirated copy is a lost sale) is not being spent elsewhere in the
  • Hollywood Lies! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pfz (965654)
    Any study that is backed by "Hollywood" (whomever that is), is nothing more than the movie studios and the guilds getting together to figure out yet another way to control technology. These are some of the most greedy corporate tools on earth! I was once told by a union executive that all the new technology is great because they can digitally superimpose products into scenes (that were not originally in the scene) and get more money from advertising. Forget art! We can sell more Doritos!!!

    My hero and friend
  • I agree 100% that there's a ripple effect. Many of us will download a quick and dirty copy of the latest blockbuster movie, see that it's absolute shit, and in turn, not go see it at the theaters or buy the DVD. Previously, millions of people were duped into paying hard earned money to see absolute and total garbage. I agree 100% that there's a ripple effect. I hope the ripples get bigger.
  • by pembo13 (770295)
    Please keep your bulshit greed to your own home country and stop exporting it to my region.
  • It's not like people are hording money that would have been spent on DVDs. The money is still flowing through the economy. So this is hardly a bad thing for the economy as a whole, it just means that other sectors of the economy are earning more money.

    -Rick
  • These studies are based on the bogus premise that those downloading would be willing to pay the retail price for content if piracy was not an option. This is such a bogus assumption I think it is fair the label those did the study and those who tout it as liars. There is ZERO evidence for such a claim.

    Because there is not a good way to price discriminate in the CD & DVD markets (charge less to those willing to pay less without charging less for everyone), it's quite possible that Hollywood and the RI
  • The report being released today -- which was largely paid for by Armey's think tank with some funding from NBC Universal and the MPAA -- takes the previous study, conducted by consulting firm L.E.K., and applies a model used by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis to calculate the potential ripple effect of those lost sales, factoring in lost jobs, worker earnings and tax revenue.

    It's called, "Velocity of Money." It is econ 101 (literally - it was in my first econ class at a mediocre state school). Anyone w
  • Read the study? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Americano (920576) on Friday September 29, 2006 @05:25PM (#16252033)
    I'm sure that everybody was far too busy thinking up cute "+5 Funny" comments to go out and actually take a look at the actual study... but for anybody who's perhaps interested in formulating a defensible position on the matter based on facts rather than groupthink, the actual publication is available here [ipi.org].

    For a bunch of geeks, I'd think that doing a bit of research & gathering the facts before reaching a conclusion would be the *first* thing you'd do when trying to combat what you decry as a campaign of FUD & misinformation. Sarcasm isn't going to win the case in a courtroom, or in Congress. Deconstruct their argument & their methods. Show their assumptions & conclusions to be faulty.
    • For a bunch of geeks, I'd think that doing a bit of research & gathering the facts before reaching a conclusion would be the *first* thing you'd do when trying to combat what you decry as a campaign of FUD & misinformation.

      You must new here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jay2003 (668095)
      The study is really thin on facts. The methodology of computing the the losses are computed is NEVER discussed. As I posted above, these studies almost always make the assumption that if piracy were stopped, those who pirated copies would be willing to buy the content at the prevailing legal price. That assumption alone which is absurd means the study is best used for toilet paper.

      The study mentions that restrictions of on the number of foreign made films (20 per year) in China drives piracy but then has
    • For a bunch of geeks, I'd think that doing a bit of research & gathering the facts before reaching a conclusion would be the *first* thing you'd do when trying to combat what you decry as a campaign of FUD & misinformation.

      Ah, you must be new to Slashdot - let me be the first to welcome you to our fair digital shores.

      That being accomplished, you should realize the mythology of the geek is just a *bit* overstated. They have, in general, not the slightest interest in research and less in fac

    • Show their assumptions & conclusions to be faulty.

      I don't need to read their bullshit report to do that, the answer is right in the US constitution. Recall the copyright establishment clause of section eight [cornell.edu] with me:

      To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

      Notice the term "limited"? DRM is forever and therefore unconstitutional.

      More fundamentally, the reason for cop

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella (173770)
      It's not so much what it actually says, but the whole point is misleading. If I stop buying chocolate, I'm not only hurting the retailer, but the distributor, importer, producer and right down to the guy picking the cocoa beans and the local pub where he goes to take a beer. On the other hand, if I buy mints instead, I not only help the retailer, but the distributor, importer, producer and right down to the guy on the factory floor and the local pub where he goes to take a beer. Almost every cent except tho
  • In parts of Asia you can buy all kinds of pirated DVDs, software, etc. at stores and elsewhere. It probably employs hundreds of thousands of people who pay for media, equipment; rent storefronts, etc. Is Hollywood worried about what ripple effects they'll have on the economy when they crack down on those operations? I thought not.
  • "Internet piracy may be tougher for lawmakers to conceptualize, entertainment companies fear."

    Well, they're right to be afraid about this, when you consider that lawmakers have a tough enough time conceptualizing the Internet. [wikipedia.org]

    Seriously though, does anyone who's not in their pocket actually believe any of the statistics spewed by the RIAA or MPAA? If their math got any fuzzier their press releases about it would have to be shaved before the text could be made out.

    ~Philly
  • by Metroid72 (654017) on Friday September 29, 2006 @05:48PM (#16252387)
    I can see the effects of a mini economy around Piracy.

    The Hollywood leakers, plus the illegal dubbers in South America combined with the rouge servers provide an avenue for people with burners at home that can go and sell this pirated content in flea markets and feed their families. It happens with books, music and other stuff....

    Is it illegal and bad? YES....

    So is WAR... (and it seems to fuel economies too...)
    Read: http://www.amazon.com/Political-Economy-Recent-Eco nomic-Thought/dp/0792383109/sr=8-2/qid=1159566373/ ref=sr_1_2/104-5959278-4596701?ie=UTF8&s=books [amazon.com]

    Oh well...
  • by Eil (82413) on Friday September 29, 2006 @06:00PM (#16252623) Homepage Journal
    Internet piracy may be tougher for lawmakers to conceptualize, entertainment companies fear.

    Feh! Like's that's ever been an obstacle in the past...

    MPAA: Mr. Lawmaker, Internet Piracy of our copyrighted works is bad. When everyday people decide that they can download movies illegally without fear of repercussion, we find that sales plummet, the industry suffers, and the culture as a whole is significantly damaged.

    Lawmaker: Eh?

    MPAA: We're hemorrhaging money thanks to Intarwebs!

    Lawmaker. Oh.

    MPAA: And you see, accounting has this weird thing where our profits are directly linked to the campaign contributions that we make to you.

    Lawmaker: And what would you like your new law called?
  • by erroneus (253617) on Friday September 29, 2006 @06:20PM (#16252891) Homepage
    According to the study, lost revenues may have as much as three times the impact previously imagined.

    If nothing proves they are imagining things more than this, I haven't seen it. Doesn't this statement indicate their losses are imaginary and that these new estimations are three times as imaginary?

    I hate to say that it's time for another law but I think there should be "rules and ethics of evidence" introduced into law. Such a law would state that any studies submitted to the senate or congress must have, at the very least, an impartial study to balance out the claims of special interests. We all know how stats and studies can be twisted into outrageous lies and exaggerations. It's time we start disallowing such crap on a regular basis. If these special interests are willing to fund their own studies as evidence for a need for legislation, then they should also be willing to have another study made as ordered by the legislative commission that will be reviewing the information. It would seem like a natural extension of our other fair and balanced matters of law such as in the case of evidence presented in a court.

    I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tired of the lies, damned lies and statistics given as evidence to write new laws. And while we're at it, let's stop the dairy companies from recommending our RDA of milk that seems to go up at every opportunity. Talk about conflicting interests.... and oil companies denying global warming? Enough already!
  • Just because you don't buy a cd with your $20 doesn't mean you won't spend it elsewhere and just throw it in the bank.

    What this goof is referring to is the multiplier effect, something elementary to economists. Thing is, you might spend your $20 and buy yourself some uber awesome coffee and dessert for you and a friend at Starbuck's instead. It's entertainment dollars spent differently.

    And that money spent at Starbucks too has a multiplier effect - money goes to the pastry shops, the landlord, the employe
  • I own shares in General Electric. (Some of you may be confused at the relevance of the last statement but hold on and it will become crystal clear.) GE owns NBC/Universal. NBC is wasting money funding dumbass reports like this and paying for lobbyists to take these made up reports and present them to congress. Now this is fleacing my wallet in two ways:

    1) GE is directly out the amount of money the spent making and showing this report. GE is also out because of lost customers who tie NBC with the MPAA and
  • by unity100 (970058) on Friday September 29, 2006 @07:07PM (#16253503) Homepage Journal
    Back in the 20es when they were stamping on hollywood's "liberties" about making socially controversial films.

    See, today the opressed became the opressor, and this time the opression is not for what is right or wrong, but for MONEY.

    Just when are you going to die out, 55+ generation ?
  • by Sir Holo (531007) * on Saturday September 30, 2006 @05:40AM (#16256875)
    So, they extrapolated from their initial made up number, eh?

    This type of false logic is called the Broken Window Fallacy [wikipedia.org]. Read it.

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...