Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Tainted "Piracy" Statistics 401

Posted by kdawson
from the lies-and-damn-lies dept.
newtley writes, "The music, movie, and software cartels claim 'piracy' is a Number One problem not only for themselves, but for the world as a whole and so successful are their continuing dis- and misinformation propaganda campaigns that they've been able to dragoon entire governments and police forces into acting as industry enforcers. But, says p2pnet, far from being at the top of the pile, movie and music piracy rank 16th and 20th, respectively, on a global index of illicit markets. (Software piracy ranks 7th.) And even those positions are subject to considerable doubt."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tainted "Piracy" Statistics

Comments Filter:
  • by dada21 (163177) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @10:39PM (#16571418) Homepage Journal
    That list gives me even more reason to believe that society and the States that surround us are both inept. Look at the rundown of the top 10 items and the reasons why the item is "contraband."

    1. Marijuana -- The State says what you can put into your body (doing no crime to no one else), probably funded by the big medical business

    2. Counterfeit Technology Products -- This is why you shop at stores that guarantee their products with a refund. If there was no law against counterfeit goods, I'd let the retailer find out what is best for me. In some cases, something counterfeit might be of the same quality as the "official and legal" version. Look at Fendi handbags and their knock-offs

    3. Cocaine -- See #1. No crime committed against anyone else. Now if you kill someone (when on drugs or off), I can agree that a crime is committed, but the intoxicant shouldn't matter. Sometimes that intoxicant is adrenaline.

    4. Opion/Heroin -- See #1 (doing crime to no one else).

    5. Pirated Web Videos. Supply and demand here. The supply of digitally transmitted products is nearly infinite, therefore the price falls to the floor. Then again, I am I am against copyright [www.nocopyrightstudios].

    6. Counterfeit Pharmaceutical -- Here's another place that the retail and distributor can excel at. Don't trust your distributor? Shop at one that's insured and bonded against dispensing dangerous drugs, or knock-off ones.

    7. Pirated Software. See #5 (supply and demand).

    8. Human Trafficking. Here's a place I can understand goverment being involved in, but it is also one they're doing a terrible job in fighting. The worst concern is my thought that a lot of States might even be involved in this problem. I know the U.S. government trafficks in human lives and bodies. See Guantanemo Bay.

    9. Amphetamines/Meth -- See #1 (doing crime to no one else).

    10. Animals and Wildlife Smuggling. Here's a problem better solved through groups like PERC [perc.org]. If you care about rare animals, spend YOUR money to make wildlife habitats to keep them out of the open arms of the State that is part of the problem with extinction.

    11. Ecstasy -- See #1 (doing crime to no one else).

    12. Counterfeit Auto Parts -- See #2 (shop at trustworthy retailers if you're concerned).

    13. Trash Smuggling. A friend of mine is a famous pastor in Uganda. I told him we should go into business to take trash from the U.S. on boats to Uganda and let people find value in the trash. He loved the idea. He deals with the absolute poorest people in Africa every day (I'm going there again in December) and he loves the thought that one man's trash is another man's treasure. They'd probably find millions of dollars worth of treasure in our trash.

    14. Human Smuggling -- See #8 (State's failure).

    15. Art and Antique Smuggling. I insure against theft, so should you. The State is worthless here.

    16. Pirated Movies -- See #5 (supply and demand).

    17. Smuggled Cigarettes -- Thank the market for cheaper tax free smokes. I noticed they were $7 a pack in Chicago a few weeks ago. Tax free they're about 70 cents. The State created this problem.

    18. Gas and Oil Smuggling. See #17 on the State destroying the market of goods through taxation/theft.

    19. Pirated Music -- See #5 (supply and demand).

    20. Illegal Fishing -- See #10 (privately funded habitats).

    22. Pirated Mobile Phone Entertainment -- See #5 (supply and demand).

    23. Pirated Video Games -- See #5 (supply and demand).

    24. Counterfeit Cigarettes -- See #17 (market provisions) and #2 (shop at trustworthy retailers if you're concerned).

    25. Small Arms Trafficking -- See the second amendment.

    27. Counterfeit Shoes -- See #2 (shop at trustworthy retailers if you're concerned).

    28. Pirated Books -- See #5 (supply and demand).

    29. Counterfeit Sports Memorabilia -- See #5 (supply and demand) and #2 (shop
    • by gt_mattex (1016103) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @10:44PM (#16571458)

      19. Pirated Music -- See #5 (supply and demand).


      20. Illegal Fishing -- See #10 (privately funded habitats).

      I think that says it all. Pirated music is just a slightly bigger problem than illegal fishing.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by GregVernon (980273)
      Just to be obnoxious, or maybe just to tell you something, the U.S. Constitution isn't amended with Copyright laws; or any other laws for that matter. Laws are put into service via the terms written into the constitution however the constitution isn't changed. One can add amendments by introducing it, then having a vote with all the states. If it passes by a 2/3's vote, it becomes an amendment.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by belmolis (702863)

      While I agree with many of these, there are a couple I have problems with. With regard to small arms trafficking, your comment suggests that it isn't a problem because people have a right to bear arms. First, that doesn't mean that everyone should be able to carry arms. Do you really object to restrictions on felons and mentally ill people obtaining firearms, restricting the ability of rogue governments and criminal organizations to obtain them? Second, "small arms" includes a lot of things other than hunt

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Amouth (879122)
        Just wanted to note that you mentioned the right to bear arms.. that isn't meant to be there for self defense.. it is to be there so that the people will have the means if necessary to retaliate against their own government..

        now last time I checked our armed forces have every weapon known to man and many trained people to use them..

        if there was a civilian revolt today against the US it would require someone from the armed forces to command their troops against the government for it to work.. there is no
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Dunbal (464142)
          it is to be there so that the people will have the means if necessary to retaliate against their own government..

                Which begs the question (as an outsider looking at what has happened in the US in the past few years) - so, what are you waiting for?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Do you really object to restrictions on [...] mentally ill people obtaining firearms [...]?

        Wow, that question sends a chill down my spine. Who defines who is sufficiently 'mentally ill' to warrant restrictions? Would this category include those Stalin deemed to be mentally ill due to their opposition to his politics? What about homosexual people 50 years ago?

        If you open the door to arbitrary restictions on liberties, things becomes very cloudy when you need to decide where to close it. I agree that keep
    • by Dr. Eggman (932300) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @10:59PM (#16571598)
      If my historical degree from the History channel means anything, those drugs (1,3,4,9,11) became illegal well before the Big Pharma of today. The 'channel also had an interesting contention that the pressure to make them illegal was born out a combination of racism, prohibition movements, and misinformation. Today, well maybe its Big Pharma keeping it going, but personally I think its politicians looking for an easy issue to agree with voters. Mind you, I mean both Liberals and Conservatives; I'll not have my opinion dumped on one group and not the other.

      That said, the constitution is an evolving document, subject to the collective will of the people, for better or worse, yadda yadda yadda.
    • by Heir Of The Mess (939658) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @11:13PM (#16571690) Homepage

      As much as I hate to step on the toes on someone advocating civil liberties there is a thing I would like to argue with you about.

      You seem to be saying that all drugs are harmless. Tell this to any father whose daughter has been introduced to drugs like Cocaine at a party, gotten addicted, travelled down the path to where she has to do unspeakable things for money to buy more, and then eventually died from an overdose or suicide. I think you'll have an argument on your hands. I've seen this happen. It's horrid. You can't group all drugs in the same backet. Drug pushers destroy lives for their own profit, and they have some pretty devastating, instantly addictable weapons in their arsenal that they use to draw young people, particulary girls, into their net.

      I guess you could say that people should be allow to make the choice about whether to be enslaved by drugs, but often young people don't understand the nature of the enslavement until it's too late. Experience is often something you get after you needed it.

      • Tell this to any father whose daughter has been introduced to drugs like Cocaine at a party, gotten addicted, travelled down the path to where she has to do unspeakable things for money to buy more, and then eventually died from an overdose or suicide.

        That's natural selection. I know a few people who that happened to (not to the point of overdose or suicide yet, AFAIK). I also know people who were't too stupid to know that cocaine is addicting, and some people with enough will power to only try it once

        • by wall0159 (881759) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @12:28AM (#16572156)
          Wow. That is, at the same time, both ignorant and stupid. Well done!

          1. You implicitly assume that addiction is related to genetics, and therefore by letting addicts die you are improving the gene-pool. Please provide some evidence of this.

          2. You confuse stupidity with ignorance

          3. You ignore a plethora of social factors involved in drug use

          4. You ignore the negative effects that drug users have on society

          5. You ignore the negative effects that the drug barons have on society (organised crime of other kinds).

          The idea that 'people should be allowed to do what they want with their own body' is wrong. It's wrong because it's based on the premise that we don't owe anything to society. No matter how independant you might think you are, you still owe a huge debt to society, and its ancestry. Just going with the flow isn't good enough, and we have a responsibility to each other to ensure that people pull their weight.

          That's one reason why I think 'libertarians' are wrong - they think all this is optional.
          • 1. It's possible (but unlikely) that addictive personality is entirely independent of genetics. But it doesn't matter - there's no way stupid people dying could hurt the gene pool.

            2. I know the difference, but saying "gee, those DARE people were just squares - I won't get addicted! Besides, I might gain the approval of a few other people!" is stupidity as much as it is ignorance.

            3. You ignore the ability of intelligent people to resist them. How many smart sheeple do YOU know?

            4. You ignore that mos
          • by arevos (659374) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @09:01AM (#16576160) Homepage
            5. You ignore the negative effects that the drug barons have on society (organised crime of other kinds).

            Wait, surely this is an argument for legalising drugs? Criminals can profit from drug trafficking because its illicit nature allows them to have extremely high margins with none of the governmental oversight usually associated with the pharmaceutical business. If one could buy heroin or cocaine from the local chemist, organised crime gangs would be quickly priced out of the market by large pharma corporations. Doubtless there'd still be some money to be made from tax-dodging, but this would be a fraction of the market.

            So the question is whether you believe that the disadvantages of legalising drug use outweighs the advantages of significantly reducing the profits of organised crime.

            The idea that 'people should be allowed to do what they want with their own body' is wrong. It's wrong because it's based on the premise that we don't owe anything to society. No matter how independant you might think you are, you still owe a huge debt to society, and its ancestry.

            By that argument, suicide should be made illegal, since you're depriving society of your future contributions. Besides, paying back debts to society is exactly what taxes are for. If drug use increases our debt, then we should pay increased taxes; the high tax on cigarettes and alcohol is an obvious precedent.

            Arguing that we shouldn't be able to do what we want with our own bodies, implies that our bodies are not entirely our property. I'm not sure I particularly like the idea of this.

          • by joshetc (955226) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @09:28AM (#16576588)
            Its horrid to punish someone for something they didn't do though. If I smoke myself into an oblivion then beat my wife, sure I should be punished. If I turn my baby into a crackhead to help it sleep at night, I should be punished. If I'm getting doped up all the time to the point that I can't support my family my children should be taken away by reason of neglect and I should be punished. If I like to smoke pot after work to calm myself down while I watch TV and munch on a bag of chips the government should fuck off.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by phorm (591458)
            1. You implicitly assume that addiction is related to genetics, and therefore by letting addicts die you are improving the gene-pool. Please provide some evidence of this.

            Maybe not genetics, but possibly child-rearing. Part of the problem is that drunks, drug addicts, and others can (and often do) have children. The extremely volitile environment is often very damaging to the children, and causes them to grow into damaged adults. The cycle continues.

            This isn't always the case, but it tends to be quite
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @12:23AM (#16572130)
        It's not that drugs don't have inherent risks, it's more that criminalizing them does nothing to prevent addiction. When drugs were first criminalized, it was because a whopping 7% of the population was estimated to be addicted to drugs. Now, close to a hundred years later, after many billions of dollars have been spent, and organized crime (gangs, mafia, etc) have been given control over these insanely profitable items leading to gang violence, filling and overfilling our prisons, underprivileged sectors of society have been demonized, etc etc etc... we have finally brought our national drug addiction rate down to... 7% of the population. That's why the drug war is not morally justified... if the resources funneled into fighting drugs with the police force had been channeled into public education, treatment and rehabilitation, and most of all improving the quality of life of citizens at risk for developing addictions (Read about rat park [wikipedia.org]) there might have been a significant decrease in addiction rates, but the current policing model does NOTHING to prevent addiction.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SpecBear (769433)

        You don't have to assume that all drugs are harmless in order to support their legalization. All that's required is that the harm done by prohibition is greater than the harm done by legalization. I've lived in neighborhoods that saw lots of drug traffic. If I had to choose between the current state of things and legalizing drugs (cocaine, speed, heroin, all of em) I'd choose legalization.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Tell this to any father whose daughter has been introduced to drugs like Cocaine at a party, gotten addicted, travelled down the path to where she has to do unspeakable things for money to buy more, and then eventually died from an overdose or suicide.

        Hehe, you're making his argument for him. Cocaine is only expensive and hazardous because it's illegal. Make it legal and regulate it like booze, and it's going to be as cheap as somewhat expensive booze and come in a predictable concentration. Also, keep i

      • by Sloppy (14984)
        ..travelled down the path to where she has to do unspeakable things for money to buy more

        Thank the government for that. Wal-Mart would have happily sold it to her for $3.99 per ounce, if they were allowed to.

        When you vote for prohibition, you're voting for innocent, young girls doing unspeakable things for inflated drug prices. Hmmmm.. ok, you talked me into it. I'll advocate prohibition.

      • by clambake (37702)
        You seem to be saying that all drugs are harmless. Tell this to any father whose daughter has been introduced to drugs like Cocaine at a party, gotten addicted, travelled down the path to where she has to do unspeakable things for money to buy more, and then eventually died from an overdose or suicide. I think you'll have an argument on your hands. I've seen this happen. It's horrid. You can't group all drugs in the same backet. Drug pushers destroy lives for their own profit, and they have some pretty dev
    • by Heir Of The Mess (939658) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @11:18PM (#16571726) Homepage
      You seem to be saying that all drugs are harmless. Tell this to any father whose daughter has been introduced to drugs like Cocaine at a party, gotten addicted, travelled down the path to where she has to do unspeakable things for money to buy more, and then eventually died from an overdose or suicide. I think you'll have an argument on your hands. I've seen this happen. It's horrid. You can't group all drugs in the same backet. Drug pushers destroy lives for their own profit, and they have some pretty devastating, instantly addictable weapons in their arsenal that they use to draw young people, particulary girls, into their net.

      I forgot to add the topic-relevent bit.

      Calling music piracy a major problem when society is full of stuff like quoted above is laughable.

    • I am glad somebody has listed Number 20, "Illegal Fishing".
      I do that periodically.
      I say properly bait that hook, and you'll catch 'em every time!
      Favorites:
      • Crickets
      • Earth Worms
      • Grubs
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      3. Cocaine -- See #1. No crime committed against anyone else. Now if you kill someone (when on drugs or off), I can agree that a crime is committed, but the intoxicant shouldn't matter. Sometimes that intoxicant is adrenaline.
      4. Opion/Heroin -- See #1 (doing crime to no one else).

      How about we legalize all weapons while we're at it (rocket launchers, AK-47s, etc)? Certainly if I wanted to harm someone I'd find a way to do it anyway, right? Your logic is flawed because cocaine/opion(did you mean opium?)

      • by dwandy (907337)
        It's not that simple [slashdot.org]

        You're simply parroting the capitalist/monopolist propoganda. you're where I was a couple years ago. Do some reading, think about the current economy (guys like redhat, ibm and mysql all *pay* people to write *free* software ... how does that figure into your dilemna?)

        I've written some of it down in my journal here on /. ... it's a good place to start, but I'm sure it'll lead you to make up your own mind.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by PachmanP (881352)

        Your logic is flawed because cocaine/opion(did you mean opium?)/heroin would become HUGE problems in society and I don't need to explain this if you have any practical sense whatsoever.

        Humor us. What pray tell would the huge problems become? While I won't argue that with a little thought I couldn't think of a few problems, but the whole "I don't need to explain this..." argument doesn't wash. It certainly has no place in an intelligent discussion, and while I will admit that this is /. imagine how m

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Chimera512 (910750)
      Equating Heroin and Marijuana?!? Are you serious? Heroin has claimed (tens? hundreds? of) thousands and thousands of lives from overdoses, AIDS, gang related violence, suicides and other terrible things I cannot imagine. My uncle, a friend and a girl from my high school (who had been a graduate for about a month) have all died in connection to Heroin.

      I can't imagine I could find information more than a dozen marijuana related fatalities, if that many. I don't know of any first hand.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Maxo-Texas (864189)
      First... I mostly agree with you...
      That being said.
      1. Marijuana -- The State says what you can put into your body (doing no crime to no one else), probably funded by the big medical business
      No problem- hard to sneak to people and if you do, there is no immediate addiction.

      3. Cocaine -- See #1. No crime committed against anyone else. Now if you kill someone (when on drugs or off), I can agree that a crime is committed, but the intoxicant shouldn't matter. Sometimes that intoxicant is adrenaline.
      Used to addic
    • by xplenumx (703804) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @11:51PM (#16571938)
      6. Counterfeit Pharmaceutical -- Here's another place that the retail and distributor can excel at. Don't trust your distributor? Shop at one that's insured and bonded against dispensing dangerous drugs, or knock-off ones.

      I don't believe you truly understand the problems that counterfeit pharmaceuticals are causing - this goes far beyond some crook cheating a patient or someone sticking it to the 'rich pharmaceutical companies', but is a problem that creates disease pandemics and kills thousands.

      To give you one example, counterfeit antimalarial drugs are a huge problem at the moment and are threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands in Southeast Asia and Africa. Often times the pharmacies themselves aren't aware that they're selling counterfeits - in fact the proliferation of counterfeits is so bad in some areas that a large pharmacy unknowingly sold 100,000 counterfeit antimalarials and in a separate incident the entire stock of one Burmese hospital was found to be counterfeit. Simply shopping at a distributor that's "insured and bonded against dispensing dangerous drugs, or knock-off ones" doesn't appear to be a realistic solution.

      Simply testing whether the drug is a counterfeit is not necessarily a trustworthy precaution either. Due to the proliferation of counterfeit antimalarials, testing procedures were put into place. The counterfeiters got smart however, so they started to include low levels of the real drug in with their fakes. Now not only do we have drugs on the market that test as 'real' but don't provide enough of a dose to effectively treat patients, but these low levels of drug are rapidly creating drug-resistant malaria strains. Unless we're somehow able to stop this black market industry, soon we won't have any drugs left to treat malaria. How is this not murder of innocents for profit?

      While you may think that stopping counterfeit pharmaceuticals is 'ridiculous' and that it's a 'non-violent', 'non-crime', I most certainly do not. It is ridiculous to think that the various States of the world are fighting these issues, most of them are non-crimes and in most cases not even violent crimes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JoGlo (1000705)
      Free market anarchy is fine, and i do tend to agree with a lot of what you say, but i have a couple of worries.

      1 - The Second Amendment is a national legal instrument that plays no part in life outside of your borders. Many countries, for their own 9often valid) reasons, have chosen to either regulate or ban firearms, and your Second Amendment has nothing to do with their approach on the law. For those countries, firearm trafficking is a big problem - even if it isn't for you.

      2 - The abrogation of all cop

    • 3. Cocaine -- See #1. No crime committed against anyone else. Now if you kill someone (when on drugs or off), I can agree that a crime is committed, but the intoxicant shouldn't matter. Sometimes that intoxicant is adrenaline.

      4. Opion/Heroin -- See #1 (doing crime to no one else).

      This is outright ignorant. In your mind, if A causes crime, A should be illegal, but if A greatly increases the likelihood of crime and results in huge harm to society in medical costs, then it should not be outlawed. The pr

    • The State says what you can put into your body (doing no crime to no one else), probably funded by the big medical business

      That might be true in a country with no public health care, but if you live somewhere where the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the health effects of excess Marijuana consumption (mental health, lung disease etc), it becomes a government problem.
    • by Grym (725290) *

      While I agree with you on the state of the law with regard to Marijuana, I really have to question your implicit assumption that ALL drugs should be legal. It's interesting that on that long list of yours that you omitted drugs like PCP or LSD, because these drugs can make some people become violent, self-destructive, and dangerous to others.

      For those drugs, it would become a huge public health issue if they were legal. Which raises another question: in this way, couldn't ALL IV drugs be considered a pu

    • by debrain (29228)
      Just a couple notes

      25. Small Arms Trafficking -- See the second amendment.

      That's circular. If the second amendment was the right to own slaves, would that alone justify it? Of course not. But there are a lot of arguments there; I can see why you left it short.

      1. Marijuana -- The State says what you can put into your body (doing no crime to no one else), probably funded by the big medical business

      You left out the part where big tobacco still gets to peddle its poison, and alcohol is free and clear of any fut

    • by MaWeiTao (908546)
      I find it a bit funny that while people act suspiciously towards pharmaceutical drugs and their potential side-effects and are wary of genetically modified foods they freely embrace drugs. Untold millions around the world have displayed countless side-effects from drug use ranging from impotence and brain cell loss all the way to death. And yet somehow people manage to come up excuses for everything. There's a reason why drugs are illegal regardless of whatever other motivations may drive some of it.

      Keep in
    • Guns? Second Amendment? Uhh no...I hate to break it to you. The second ammendment does not provide you with the right to own a gun. Please...take a history class sometime or just read the consitution in general (every politician and 90% of the country needs to read the Amendments yearly for thier clue check). The Second Amendment was created to divide military power out to the respective states so no one person can be in control of one unchallengable, massive, army. The colonists had just gotten done with t
    • Your assessment certainly rings my libertarian inclinations rather loudly!

      But I've come to realize something - people ARE stupid. Adding to that is the fact that now it's easily possible to build drugs that addict you with one single dose. And, there are countless such drugs! So there's a VERY TOUGH decision to make: do you allow 60% of your population to die, causing dramatic losses in economy, simply because they are too stupid to not take the killer drug, or do you attempt to control the damage to your p
    • by kz45 (175825)
      "Pirated Web Videos. Supply and demand here. The supply of digitally transmitted products is nearly infinite, therefore the price falls to the floor. Then again, I am I am against copyright [www.nocopyrightstudios"

      This isn't true. Digital products can't be compared to something physical (remember the old "copying a cd isn't the same as stealing" argument, it applies here as well).

      Also, they aren't a bunch of random bits. It takes weeks, months, and sometimes even years to create a piece of music, applicat
    • 9. Amphetamines/Meth -- See #1 (doing crime to no one else).

      If you think that Meth production does no harm to anyone else, then you have a grossly oversimplified view of the logistics and mechanics of the trade. Meth labs are like miniature Chernobyls, even long after they've been abandoned. The levels of toxicity of even the ambient air in these locations are so high that just a few minutes of exposure can do significant irreparable harm to passers-by.

      Heaven help you if you're an officer that gets ca

  • Soon the people against the music and movie piracy will claim that the survey is flawed. it's the same thing that the Christian Scientists and similar do when presented with proof they're wrong.
    • by buswolley (591500)
      No. That is what every competing scientist does. I see it all the time. Sometimes it is a good thing because it helps refine and discuss the issue in contention...Sometimes it is bad...Deliberate denial of the evidence...

      Lastly, you make a cheap shot at Christian scientists. You provide no evidence to support your claim. In fact there is a large segment of legitimate scientists who are also Christian.

      OH wait... I see what you mean.. "Christian Scientists..:A religion based on the teachings of Jesus. It was

  • by Gracenotes (1001843) <wikigracenotes@gma i l . com> on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @10:50PM (#16571524)
    Did anyone notice that Pirated Web Videos is #5? Web videos include stolen background music, and stolen movies and TV content. I don't see where the line is between Web Videos and other pirated content, and whether certain money counts towards two issues at the same time.

    And organizing Illicit Markets by value is a bit tainted: money is not always correlated with prevalence. Just look at small groups of CEOs earning millions of dollars: overall, they're asmall minority.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Lehk228 (705449)
      overall, they're asmall minority.

      actually they are usually large white guys.
    • Pirating is different than drug/human trafficking.

      The argument that recording industries etc make against piracy is that every sales of a pirated item is lost revenue for a legal sale.

      The same does not hold true for drugs, humans and other illegal items. You cannot argue that if someone had not bought illegal drugs then they'd have bought the same value of legal drugs from somewhere else. A lot of the street price of grass is due to it being illegal. If it was legal, then you'd have freeer flow and the pric

    • by buswolley (591500)
      Probably mostly pirated porn.
  • It Is Still Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @10:53PM (#16571554)
    No matter what the arguments are from either side, the bottom line is that piracy of copyrighted works is still wrong and shameful.

    The fact is pirates are enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor without compensating them for the price they are charging. There is no way that the piracy apologists can get around it, so they resort so stuff like this, and downplay any statistics they don't like.

    Wrong is wrong, even if this doesn't rank on the top of the list of evils in the world. Stop trying to justify this illegal activity.
    • So what about.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Neitokun (882224)
      The music companies that make billions off of work done by artists? They have a system set up so that they perpetually earn money off of something they never did. An example is the lawsuit against napster sooooo many years ago. The whole thing went to the labels, none went to the artists.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The fact is pirates are enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor without compensating them for the price they are charging. There is no way that the piracy apologists can get around it, so they resort so stuff like this, and downplay any statistics they don't like.

      Well, I have already paid for the music I put on my CDs or iPod because the Recording industry forced a tax on these devices (it works out to be a couple of dollars per iPod and cents per cd); according to my legal system it is absolutely legal
    • by Artifakt (700173) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @11:07PM (#16571658)
      No matter what the arguments are from either side, the bottom line is that lieing about the damages actually suffered is still wrong and shameful.

      The fact is media producers are vastly overstating the damage they suffer, in an effort to steal limited police services from other, more deserving crime victims. There is no way that the Media apologists can get around it, so they resort so stuff like this, and downplay any statistics they don't like.

      Wrong is wrong, even if this doesn't rank on the top of the list of evils in the world. Stop trying to justify this fraudulently illegal activity.
      • by westlake (615356)
        The fact is media producers are vastly overstating the damage they suffer, in an effort to steal limited police services from other, more deserving crime victims. There is no way that the Media apologists can get around it, so they resort so stuff like this, and downplay any statistics they don't like.

        Economic crimes are still crimes. The Enron exec goes to jail.

        The white collar criminal does not get a bye because his victims, individual or corporate, are somehow less "deserving."

        In the U.S., P2P is pol

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by aussie_a (778472)

      No matter what the arguments are from either side, the bottom line is that piracy of copyrighted works is still wrong and shameful.

      No, the bottom line is that piracy of copyrighted works is still illegal.

      The fact is pirates are enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor without compensating them for the price they are charging.

      Given how long copyright terms exist, I find it difficult to feel sorry for copyright holders who take advantage of the ridiculously long copyright term limits.

    • by xigxag (167441)
      Stop trying to justify this illegal activity.

      Nowhere does the summary try to justify piracy. It's simply saying that the threat is overrated, and consequently, by implication, so is the punishment. "Wrong is wrong" is a moronic sentiment usually uttered by people who ignore the myriad ways they violate little laws in their everyday lives. Surely you can see that there should be different consequences for mass murder than for underinflating your bicycle tires. Similarly, I'd argue that uploading a song i
  • by swillden (191260) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @11:04PM (#16571638) Homepage Journal

    What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the media industry is small potatoes. Seriously, look up some hard numbers aggregating the worldwide revenues and profits from music, movies, TV and video games and then compare them to the numbers from other industries. I did this a while back and found that any two of the biggest IT handful of IT companies exceeded the *entire* media industry. And IT is itself small potatoes compared to manufacturing, distribution, energy, agriculture etc. Any one of the major players in those real industries, the ones that actually make stuff, absolutely dwarfs the entire worldwide entertainment and media industry. Consider the fact that most of the music industry's US revenue is channeled through Wal-mart, and then consider what a tiny part of Wal-mart's business music is.

    Even if media piracy were absolutely massive, the net effect on the US and world economies would be almost negligible. Piracy can't be a major problem because media isn't major.

    But even though media is small potatoes financially, what they have is a direct line to the masses. Because communication is what they do, they have influence, and therefore power, that is orders of magnitude greater than their real economic importance.

    • by dwandy (907337) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @11:25PM (#16571768) Homepage Journal
      What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the media industry is small potatoes.
      Until you look at the number that's important: gross profit available to purchase politicians. While the sales in these other sectors is far larger than media, the dispensible income (and concentration thereof) is no where near.

      Intellectual monopoly laws create an enviornment of unprecendented disposable profit.
      Couple that with a political system that demands bribery as a requirement to win and we have laws that are disproportionately strong for the industries' true importance in the economy.

      • by swillden (191260) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @11:35PM (#16571834) Homepage Journal

        Until you look at the number that's important: gross profit available to purchase politicians. While the sales in these other sectors is far larger than media, the dispensible income (and concentration thereof) is no where near.

        Actually, profits in those other sectors *also* dwarf the profits in the entertainment industry. And, by and large, the political contributions are on a similar scale. The charity that manufacturing and agriculture extract from the federal government, for example, is mind-boggling. No, the only difference is that the media industry is more visible, both when they want to be and when they don't want to be.

        Even in the political donations arena they're small potatoes financially, but wield inordinate influence.

        • by dwandy (907337)

          Actually, profits in those other sectors *also* dwarf the profits in the entertainment industry. And, by and large, the political contributions are on a similar scale. The charity that manufacturing and agriculture extract from the federal government, for example, is mind-boggling.

          Run me some numbers and references ... I'm very interested...
          specifically in pure $$ how much money is being spent, and I guess more specifically how it is concentrated. It seems to me that it's the concentration of money (sony

  • NO WAI! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenisNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @11:13PM (#16571694) Homepage
    That bidnez would lie to try and make a buck...

    Newsflash, business has long since departed the capitalism game and joined the "corrupt enterprise" market. Companies just feel "entitled" to make hand over fist of cash because clearly they're hip, happening, and all that jazz. Sales low? Must be piracy, because it can be in no way due to the COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK OF QUALITY OUTPUT. Or simply overpriced shit. I mean I like boxsets like the next guy, but honestly, a boxset of cartoons ain't worth 70$. Especially when I can score them off the net for 0$.

    Combine quality with fair market valued prices and you will see a return of sales numbers.

    Tom
    • by Dunbal (464142)
      a boxset of cartoons ain't worth 70$.

            Especially where you leave the US and look at the countries where the real piracy is happening. $70 is half a month's wages in most places. Most people here in the third world will settle for a lower quality pirated version for $5.
  • Odd feeling (Score:2, Insightful)

    by alphax45 (675119)
    Why is this news? I get the feeling when reading this someone just made up these facts. The sites they are posted on seem questionable at best. The first link proudly displayed an ad for file sharing programs. Just doesn't feel right to me.

    Totally off topic but the new spell checker in Firefox rules!
  • "The music, movie, and software cartels claim 'piracy' is a Number One problem not only for themselves, but for the world as a whole"

    Well, they obviously don't consider the other illicit markets a big problem.

    But seriously. Look. Marijuana is top, followed by counterfeit technology... next two positions are drugs. Then web vids, more drugs, then comes pirated software. There's 2 more drug markets and 4 smuggling markets before you hit Movies.
  • by cralewyth (934970) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @11:27PM (#16571778)
    On the havocscope illicit markets list, Drug markets are measured alongside counterfeit products and pirated products.

    The problem comes when figures for pirated & counterfeit products are from those industries, quotes of how much is lost... Now, somehow I doubt that the illicit marijuana industry value is based on how much that industry has lost. Considering that it is illegal in most countries.

    So here we have two sets of figures - one which is basically "estimated loss on profit, based from industry" and the other is "estimated products sold".

    Does anyone else see why this list isn't conclusive?
  • Mentions of the "music, movie, and software cartels", "dis- and misinformation propaganda campaigns", and attempts to "dragoon entire governments and police forces into acting as industry enforcers". No, I don't see any bias in this story. Clearly this was written with the full intent of being a serious objective look into the topic of piracy.

    Seriously though, when has any of these organizations (no, I'm sorry, "cartels") ever claimed that piracy was the "Number One problem for the world"? Or even some

  • However the large scale professional piracy enterprises are a whole different beast than the college student downloading a few songs on their computer. Professional piracy is a huge industry and is a problem. Unfortunately the music and movie industry tends to lump the professional and college student together and uses the damages caused by the professional to justify crucifying a small segment that, I believe, causes relative little harm.
  • ...are only a $1 billion market? Come on... I know governments do most of the selling, but really, smuggled weapons have GOT to be more than a lousy billion.
  • It comes full circle (Score:2, Interesting)

    by XNine (1009883)
    You see, the people trafficking monkeys and smokes make enough money to pump into other economies, like cars, homes, dining, etc. So essentially, they're probably pumping a ton of money into other industries, providing jobs and money for others. It's a double edged sword, I guess, when it comes to morality. But then again, had my company stolen a couple copies of windows, cut down on "HNIC" lunches, and not outsourced half the workforce to a company in Ohio who didn't care about customer service, just th
  • Special interest groups make up statistics that support their position... news at 11.
  • by RareButSeriousSideEf (968810) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @12:46AM (#16572296) Homepage Journal
    Dear governments of the world: We're concerned & we want to help you make the most out of your law enforcement dollar. We think we can help. Out of a list of 29 items, we the sane people of the planet will permit you to ignore the vast majority of these for the next few years -- 22 of them, in fact.

    Furthermore, even though we're eliminating over 75% of the crimes on your action-item list, we are a generous bunch, so we'll only eliminate 50% of your budget. Given your newfound surplus (once you adjust, of course), we'd like you to apply the best possible strategy -- along with all of your remaining resources -- to making noteworthy progress against 7 high-priority items that actually impact citizens' lives on a day-to-day basis, in the order that they're listed below.

    You'll notice we're taking a middle ground on the drug enforcement thing, putting some on the list & leaving others off. Well, that's what you get when you realize that the sane people of the world include liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Our views may differ a bit on recreational chemical policy, so in this case we agreed to leave you to enforce the ones currently wreaking measurable societal damage, and let idiots do as they will on the rest. That list may change over the course of time.

    # 8 - Human Trafficking
    # 14 - Human Smuggling
    # 25 - Small Arms Trafficking
    # 9 - Amphetamines/Meth (we're really just sick of looking at ugly teeth)
    # 6 - Counterfeit Pharmaceutical (I want my V!grr8 to do its job, dammit)
    # 11 - Ecstasy
    # 4 - Opium/Heroin

    When these 7 are no longer a problem, please see us about permission to prosecute any of the others. We imagine that there will still be other, more pressing issues once you've solved the biggies above.
  • by jorghis (1000092)
    Oh come on now. The writeup has the phrase: "dragoon entire governments and police forces into acting as industry enforcers". Copyright law has been around for a -LOT- longer than the .mp3 format. The MPAA has not dragooned entire governments. The governments are simply enforcing copyright laws. If a convenience store is robbed will we see a headline on slashdot about 7-11 dragooning entire city governments to go after the customers of 7-11? Are we suddenly opposed to all enforcement of laws on slashd
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tinman_au (1004053)
      Actually, copyright has pretty well become only a secondary consideration since the media companies, et al, successfully lobbied the introduction of the DMCA. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, DMCA is more serious, it doesn't matter what the copyright status of the "protected" material is under the DMCA.

      If you try and reverse engineer the encoding/copy prevention, the government/police will be all over you, hence the "dragoon entire governments and police forces into acting as industry enforcers" c

A rolling disk gathers no MOS.

Working...