 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | How to interpret MPAA / RIAA "piracy" numbers 1. Start with the number they give - in this case, "$6.1 billion to piracy worldwide, with most of the losses overseas", and 15% of the US part attributed to college students. So let's say, $6.1B x 0.4 x 0.15 = $366M.
2. Discount for likely counting of all p2p as "piracy". Let's say 10% of traffic the **AA counts is actually indie bands, Linux distros, other authorized content. $366M x 0.9 = $329M.
3. Estimate how many would have bought the same content in legal versions if they couldn't get it online. Maybe a third? $329M x 0.33 = $109M.
4. How many of those would have paid full retail, versus used copies, rentals or matinees? Say, a third full price, 2/3 at bargains averaging 50% (none of the used-copy revenue would go to the cartel companies). ($109M x .33) + (($109M x .67) x .5) = ($109 x 0.67) = $73M.
And all this is hypothetical. It's not something that can be counted on an income statement; the effect is the same as if potential customers had decided not to buy because they read books instead, or because of sunspots or any other reason.
Should higher education funding be held up because one industry speculates that it may be losing $72M by non-purchases by college students? |
|
 scrummie02BentleyPremium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA | your math is false.. You know and I know that more then 10 percent make up p2p traffic...come one don't be naive. |
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to swhx7
One more step... Then multiply that $72M by the number of people on the planet who actually care about some whiney punk *AA executive who did nothing to earn the money in the first place:
$72M * 0 = $0
This is as close to a mathematical proof to me that shows the RIAA and MPAA are worthless organizations.
This kind of reminds me of one of those Mastercard commercials.
Amount of money claimed to be lost to piracy: $366M.
Number of people hassled and hindered by useless *AA attorneys: thousands.
Number of *AA executives who add value to the economy: 0.
Value of having organizations that screw artists and attack the public because of psychotic paranoid fantasies: worthless.
--
Some terrorists don't wear rags on their head, go without showers for weeks, and smell like camel crap. Instead they live in America and support Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for president. |
|
| reply to scrummie02
Re: How to interpret MPAA / RIAA "piracy" numbers He counted 90% of the p2p traffic as pirated **AA content. From step2: $366M X 90% = $329M.
said by swhx72 :
Discount for likely counting of all p2p as "piracy". Let's say 10% of traffic the **AA counts is actually indie bands, Linux distros, other authorized content. $366M x 0.9 = $329M. |
|
| reply to swhx7
Ah, but it's even better (worse?) than that.
(The following figures come from »arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···761.html )
Apparently, of that $6.1 billion, $2.4 billion is "hard piracy" (guy on the corner selling copied DVDs for $5 each). Then there's $1.4 billion that the MPAA "loses" to illegal copying (making a backup copy of a legitimate DVD you bought). This leaves $2.3 billion lost via Internet downloading.
Now, plug $2.3 billion into your steps instead of $6.1 billion and we come up with $27.5 million.
The other interesting thing that this shows is that 60% of their "losses to piracy" figures are pretty much just made up numbers to evoke sympathy for the industry. Sympathy in government circles, of course, not with consumers. They don't care about us at all. Our wallets, yes. Us, no.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
|
|
| reply to NOVA_Guy
Re: One more step... said by NOVA_Guy:Then multiply that $72M by the number of people on the planet who actually care about some whiney punk *AA executive who did nothing to earn the money in the first place:
$72M * 0 = $0
This is as close to a mathematical proof to me that shows the RIAA and MPAA are worthless organizations.
This kind of reminds me of one of those Mastercard commercials.
Amount of money claimed to be lost to piracy: $366M.
Number of people hassled and hindered by useless *AA attorneys: thousands.
Number of *AA executives who add value to the economy: 0.
Value of having organizations that screw artists and attack the public because of psychotic paranoid fantasies: worthless.
Ding! Ding! Ding! this sums up the matter nicely. |
|
scrummie02BentleyPremium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA | reply to DeToqueville
Re: How to interpret MPAA / RIAA "piracy" numbers whoops...I stand corrected..
I see now...good show. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to swhx7
said by swhx7:3. Estimate how many would have bought the same content in legal versions if they couldn't get it online. Maybe a third? $329M x 0.33 = $109M. 4. How many of those would have paid full retail, versus used copies, rentals or matinees? Say, a third full price, 2/3 at bargains averaging 50% (none of the used-copy revenue would go to the cartel companies). ($109M x .33) + (($109M x .67) x .5) = ($109 x 0.67) = $73M. Just because someone "Wouldn't have bought it anyways" doesn't make it ok. That's like saying it's ok to shoplift that CD or DVD from wal-mart because "I wasn't going to pay for it anyways." If you don't want to pay then do without. that's how life works. At least 90% of people in this country would consider themselves Christians and the Bible CLEARLY says "Thou shall not steal" I don't recall it making exceptions. I'm not quite sure why someone who actually believes in a supreme being that has the power to smite them down like we would a bug would screw around with God's rules. |
|
| said by BF69:said by swhx7:3. Estimate how many would have bought the same content in legal versions if they couldn't get it online. Maybe a third? $329M x 0.33 = $109M. 4. How many of those would have paid full retail, versus used copies, rentals or matinees? Say, a third full price, 2/3 at bargains averaging 50% (none of the used-copy revenue would go to the cartel companies). ($109M x .33) + (($109M x .67) x .5) = ($109 x 0.67) = $73M. Just because someone "Wouldn't have bought it anyways" doesn't make it ok. That's like saying it's ok to shoplift that CD or DVD from wal-mart because "I wasn't going to pay for it anyways." If you don't want to pay then do without. that's how life works. At least 90% of people in this country would consider themselves Christians and the Bible CLEARLY says "Thou shall not steal" I don't recall it making exceptions. I'm not quite sure why someone who actually believes in a supreme being that has the power to smite them down like we would a bug would screw around with God's rules. differnce being when shoplifting your acually depriving somebody of acual property. when download a new copy of a dvd that i own that's all scratched up i'm not hurting anybody. |
|
swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | reply to BF69
I'm not saying "piracy is OK". I'm saying "MPAA/RIAA 'losses' numbers are bogus". The economic effect is small compared to what the propaganda claims.
The merits of copyright infringement is a different topic. But if we're going to talk about "stealing", is the thief the one who disregards an artificial monopoly, or the one who robs the public domain by creating a monopoly?
Well maybe there should be a balance. We could start by following the U.S. Constitution, which allows "exclusive rights" only for "authors" and "inventors", not for exploitive middle-men like record companies. |
|
 JammerMan79Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC
kudos:10 | reply to BF69
He's not saying it's good or bad. He's saying that a loss of a sale should only be calculated on the people that would have actually bought it in the first place... If the person wouldn't have bought it anyways then there's no lost revenue.
--
I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by JammerMan79:He's not saying it's good or bad. He's saying that a loss of a sale should only be calculated on the people that would have actually bought it in the first place... If the person wouldn't have bought it anyways then there's no lost revenue. You also have to add those who only want to watch/listen to it and not own a physical copy and thus go to Blockbuster, Netfix, or their local Library and get the physical copy for a limited period of time. If I miss a movie in the theaters, I will often rent the movie to try it out before buying the DVD for my "can [re]watch it anytime" collection. Using Bittorent just bypasses the DVD Rental for my do-I-want-it try-out. |
|
JammerMan79Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC
kudos:10 | agreed, I do the same thing. Download a movie and then purchase it used at the rental store for $10.00
If I didn't check it out first I would not be buying it at all. I have around 2000 dvd's (I hate to think of how much I've spent over the last 10 yrs)
--
I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications. |
|
| reply to RARPSL
The local library is a good point. My wife and I have seen many movies from our local library's DVD collection. Should the MPAA count these as lost sales? Of course not. Just because I borrowed a movie doesn't mean that I would have purchased the DVD had the movie not been on the library's shelves. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to swhx7
i cant trust a group who says piracy is so evil and that downloading is bad. then they themselves go and do something far worse then IP violations by "pirates" and violate a the GNU software license.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
| You misunderstand. It's only bad when other people do it. When they do it, it's perfectly fine because they're the music/film industry and are therefore entitled to whatever they want. |
|
